CBR has the answer

Close your mind than and accept that change is what keeps you from growing into wiseman.

ryan Henningsgaard

That your life has meaning is in direct contradiction to a universe that is infinite with no beginning. I can't see how one could have both possibilties and be logical in the same breath. I know my life has meaning because the universe is finite with a beginning. How could it be any other way?

Certainly on the philosophical front there is at least a conundrum.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is quantitatively consistent with the agitation of hydrogen atom electrons by the ether, as they move along their orbits and FitzGerald contract, while spinning. Let's model the electron as a twirling dumbell whose axis momentarily lies in its orbital plane. If the speed of twirling is unimportant, or negligible compared to the orbital speed, then only the length of the dumbell changes (FitzGerald contraction) during the circular (Bohr model) orbital motion. The frequency of twirling, and mass, change negligibly.

The kinetic energy of twirling is T=0.5*m*omega^2*r^2. FitzGerald contraction due to orbital motion, multiplies the radius by a factor of 1-cos^2(theta)*0.5*beta^2. The relativistic "beta" for the Bohr hydrogen atom ground state electron equals the fine structure constant, "alpha". The kinetic energy of twirling is proportional to the square of the radius, so the energy deficit varies sinusoidally with mean 0.5*alpha^2*(kinetic energy of twirling), approximating to lowest order in alpha.

For an electron, the kinetic energy of spin has two degrees of freedom and is presumably equal, by equipartition, to its orbital kinetic energy, 0.5*m*c^2*alpha^2. Only 2/3 of the spin kinetic energy arises from the equivalent of "dumbells" with axes in the orbital plane. So equipartition of energy implies 2*0.5*k*T=(2/3)*m*c^2*(0.5*alpha^2)^2 which simplifies to (3/2)*k*T=m*c^2*(0.5*alpha^2)^2. Solving for T gives 2.81 degrees Kelvin as the temperature of the CMB.

This is 3% higher than the observed 2.73K, but the observational "convergence depth" is roughly 300 million light years. That is, galaxies that distance away, seem to be moving, on the average, with the same velocity relative to us (same "dipole") as the hypothetical sources of the CMB. Presumably, the CMB photons we detect, originate that far away, on the average, and therefore undergo a roughly 3% cosmological redshift. The cosmic infrared background radiation, in its spectrum and intensity, seems roughly consistent with the above effect, applied to helium electrons and the inner electrons of carbon and oxygen.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />That your life has meaning is in direct contradiction to a universe that is infinite with no beginning.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If this is more than a personal wish, you must not have thought this through.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I can't see how one could have both possibilties and be logical in the same breath.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, wishful thinking or not thought through.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I know my life has meaning because the universe is finite with a beginning.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It can only be that way if you believe in miracles, where "believe" has its strictest dictionary meaning: "to be of the opinion that something exists or is a reality, especially when there is no absolute proof of its existence or reality". Beliefs are accepted by faith despite the absence of evidence to provide a reasoned basis for acceptance.

The miracle you are accepting is that of creation <i>ex nihilo</i>, or creation from nothing. More than accepting that miracle, you have a second belief that the "First Cause" you believe in takes notice of your existence and "gives it meaning".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How could it be any other way?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because you make an implied claim here, the burden is on you to justify your two faith-based beliefs. However, almost by definition, such a justification is not possible because there is no hard evidence to base a belief on. So, while you are entitled to your beliefs, you are not entitled to the high ground here. Thinking persons tend to regard all beliefs about important matters as somewhat irrational. For example, how can a First Cause expect us to acknowledge its existence or follow its rules if we have no credible evidence for either? Such an expectation would make the First Cause irrational.

The logical alternative to all this is quite simple: There are no miracles, so there was no beginning, so the universe is infinite in five dimensions (following the deductive chain of logic in chapter one of <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>). Time is a measure of change, so our own 70 years of existence in an eternal universe is significant because, to us, all change that matters (and therefore all time that matters) occurs in our own lifespans. And that is what gives us and our individual lives meaning. In a sense, our existence is the only thing that matters. -|Tom|-

I see 0.001 degree precision given for the temperature of the CMB. That is, there are barely enough data to detect moving the peak's abscissa one part in 2700. When intergalactic absorption causes our CMB photons to be radiated from distances such that their mean cosmological redshift is 2.7%, the mean square deviation of temperature is one part in 1300. So if statisticians looked for it, deviation from the Planck curve, though second order, might be just detectable.

The CMB temperature is given as 2.725 +/- 0.001 K. Blackbody radiation at 2.8016 K whose photons receive a mean redshift of 2.73% will (if their redshift is independent of their frequency) still have 8.67% more power than the blackbody radiation of the new temperature, 2.725 K.

However, there also will be fewer photons. The brightness of an object decreases as exp(-2*a*r) (not exp(-a*r) as does the frequency of its light). If the universe were expanding, causing the Doppler effect, this would be because not only are the photons redshifted, but there are also fewer photons arriving per unit time.

Furthermore Kellermann's radio observations of distant galactic cores, show lateral linear magnification of exp(a*r). Only exp(-2*a*r) as many galaxies, cover the sky. Apparently drawing concentric shells in this part of the universe, is like drawing bullseye circles on the bottom of a pseudo-paraboloidal pothole. Thus the number of hydrogen atoms out there, goes as r^2*exp(-2*a*r), not r^2.

The overall factor of exp(-4*a*r), makes the power equal at every frequency, to first order in a=(2.8016-2.725)/2.725=0.028, to the blackbody power for the new temperature. Multistep Simpson's rule integration (200 steps from r=0 to 20; 2000 steps was practically the same) revealed the following excess power due to second order and higher terms in a:

(h*nu)/(k*T)=1 --&gt; 0.010%
2 --&gt; 0.056%
3 --&gt; 0.159%
4 --&gt; 0.33 %
5 --&gt; 0.57 %
6 --&gt; 0.88 %
7 --&gt; 1.25 %
8 --&gt; 1.69 %
9 --&gt; 2.2 %
10 --&gt; 2.7 %

Using Simpson's rule with these ten steps, shows that the total power is still 0.403% higher than blackbody for the new temperature. Some researchers seem to be attributing some of this to the far cosmic IR background: at (h*nu)/(k*T)=6, before the CMB is swamped, the excess about equals the energy attributed to far CIRB on the graph by Prof. Wright at www.astro.ucla.edu/~Wright/CIBR . However, even a power difference of 0.4% corresponds to a temperature difference of only 0.1%=0.0027 K, less than three standard deviations from the published value. Furthermore, the difference is only 0.16% near the peak of the curve, which corresponds to a temperature difference of 0.04%=0.001 K, just equal to the error bar. Another figure often given for the CMB temperature is 2.726 +/- 0.010 K. Might this higher but less precise result arise from requiring a Planck curve?