Hello,

Did anyone see the recent advertisement in the Sunday New York Times which put forward a theory that the gaseous Sun model is wrong, and that the CMB is actually from ocean emissions. The website for the ad is http://www.thermalphysics.org.

It begins with: "If I choose this avenue, it is because I am at a loss in dealing with
the scientific publication of this material. The ideas are both too
simple and unexpected to stand any chance of publication in the peer
reviewed physics literature."

This immediately makes me skeptical, but I wanted to find some evidence-based critique. I have to go back and re-look at the derivation of the blackbody spectrum, and
the properties of thermal objects, but it seems as if there are two claims in this article which need to be confirmed or proven inconsistent in order to
discuss the article. These claims are:

1) an unenclosed gas cannot support the modes of oscillation necessary to emit a blackbody spectrum
2) an unenclosed liquid can emit a blackbody spectrum, but does not follow Wien's law directly, but some other temperature-dependent law

I am not sure about the 1st, but it would seem odd to me that a liquid would emit a perfect blackbody spectrum (look at the error bars on the CMB, which the article claims is caused by a liquid emission - i.e. the oceans), yet be inconsistent in terms of the temperature predicted from the theory.


Any ideas?


thanks,

Brian Blais

The ad was written and paid for by Dr. Robitaille, a professor of radiology at Ohio State University. A subsequent article in the NY Times refuted some of Dr. Robataille's assertions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/19/national/19ASTR.html
The Times article suggested the ad and its timing could be associated with a debate in Ohio on teaching alternatives to evolution in Ohio schools, an assertion that Dr. Robitaille denies.