the big bang and the cosmic background radiation

[Guest Rex Mundi]

Gammow ,alpher and herman predicted a big bang universe would have a cosmic microwave background in 1948

In 65 it was discovered by accident by wilson and penzias

If we study history without all the horn-tooting, we find the CBR as a relic of the Bang was never predicted at all. What was predicted was an ambient temperature of space, or of the universe, but that temperature was never assigned to the Bang until later.

As far back as 1896, Guillaume estimated the radiation of the stars to be about 5.6K. Eddington estimated about 3K for the same thing.

In 1946, Gamow predicted 50K, but thought it was the actual temperature of interstellar space.

Alpher and Herman, also speaking of a temperature of the universe, estimated 5K and then 28K a year later.

In the 60's, Dicke estimated 40K, but still failed to link it to the Bang.

In 65, Penzias and Wilson discovered the actual CBR, at about 3K. It wasn't until the 70's that the CBR was linked to the Big Bang, and amazingly no one (except Penzias and Wilson) won a prize for it, since no one had actually predicted that the CBR would be proof of the Bang. All the predictions had been about black body radiation or the temperature of space, not about a residue of the Bang. The residue theory was tacked on later, since without it Bang theory couldn't explain the CBR at all (and still can't).

Edited December 2, 2012 by Rex Mundi

[distracted]

You should quote sources Rex, so people can tell which bits are your own words, or at least put cut and pastes like that inside quote html so it is clearer, it is also fairer to the author to credit them and it allows others to read on further should they wish.

Edited December 2, 2012 by distracted

[Guest Rex Mundi]

I could, and I have considered it, and I decided not to, because the words are either correct or not, and also, when it concerns physics, everyone here is ALWAYS quoting someone else, look at the op here, bazzad9 just made statements, no links, no credits...

and, I WANT people to go searching, to check out things I say, even just possibly my source, because although I do have two books here, it is all available free online...

so if you cut and paste the whole of my response into google, you might find the original, and you might THEN read it hoping to challenge me, and I would happily say, great, lets discuss THE REST of that document then.

And I would also insist that they do what I did, read every single document on the site, and that is basically two books, with a third to come soon I expect, because his updates section is overflowing....

or, you could just let me introduce it bit by bit, I've read the lot...

I add, nowhere have I ever claimed this is my theory or all my own work, except where I specifically say 'my own research' and by that I mean my own research into this chaps theory, all of which I will happily show here, it is mostly drawings because it is easier to show things graphically, but I need to introduce it bit by bit because it took me ages to piece it together, and I had to understand each bit first, so if I can get you all to also understand each bit, then you will see my whole thing graphically much easier, it will become more obvious.

I started this bit by bit thing with strawberry, by showing where gravity and EM are already unified, and also show the evidence for the next bit, the emission field....

edit:

and also, it is a way for me to check out just how much I understand of this chaps theory, if I can explain it so that you understand it, then my understanding is probably good, but if I can't explain it, then there are holes in my understanding.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Rex Mundi

[strawberry]

I started this bit by bit thing with strawberry, by showing where gravity and EM are already unified, and also show the evidence for the next bit, the emission field....

You've shown me nothing rex other than a few non-sequiturs. I was curious initially because you suggested errors in the standard model. But, since we've both learnt that you didn't know what the standard model is, and you meant something else, I'm at a loss to have much idea what you are on about.

I'm not quite sure why you're spreading everything out across a few threads, it's really not helping matters.

[Guest Rex Mundi]

okay... by trying to show, and obviously failing.... but I've only just started, I haven't yet responded to your responses, one of which has shown me that you believe that mass is a fundamental... which I will get to, perhaps... see below

re not knowing what the standard model is... I did read all that long long ago, and you reminded me that I did actually know that, but I'd forgotten it, and after forgetting that little detail long long ago, I continued going through my life WRONGLY assuming that the SM included all four forces.

But if that signifies to you I am just an ignoramus, then don't waste any of your time and just ignore me, I will not bother you further on the gravity issue I started elsewhere.

Why scatter my bits through threads? Why not start a thread on my own work?

I would if it was worth it, but so far it is not, none of you are actually INTERESTED in the ideas and findings I'm trying to put across, I mention I can show DM-DE in the historical data, and even give a link to where it can be found, and no interest.... I mention that I know what sensor to use to "measure" DM-DE, and nothing, no interest, you are more interested in convincing me I am mistaken and the scientists are right, so I'm back where I started, I need to show they are wrong, even, dare I say it, lying, and that will be in snippets in the threads scattered on the board.

If you don't like that, then please feel free to ignore me, I'll soon get the message

[strawberry]

I'm not trying to knock you rex, and I don't think you're an idiot. I'm trying to make sense of your posts to see if there's anything interesting behind it. My issue is that you're hard to follow, not that I think you're an idiot.

[Guest Rex Mundi]

right, so lets leave this thread to the opening title, the big bang theory never predicted the CBR, the lying scientists just tacked it on afterwards and then over time hint that they predicted it all along, knowing no-one will check their word, and the media then just tell everyone that they predicted it.... then people can go and look at wiki which tells you that so and so predicted this and that......

Edited December 2, 2012 by Rex Mundi

[Guest Rex Mundi]

Nothing more to see here, move on.