the greatest story ever told!

Does it Pass the PHYSICAL PROPERTIES & CHEMISTRY Test?

The Physical Properties Test: 3 PHASES of Matter

It is worth our time to quickly review the three phases of matter, plus plasmas, going from solids to plasmas as we add heat and from plasmas to solids as we subtract heat energy. Solids have a definite shape, and a definite volume. They are high density and are slightly compressible. Liquids have no definite shape, but do have a definite volume. They are mid to high density, and are also slightly compressible. Gases have no definite shape, no definite volume, they are low density and highly compressible.

When elements receive heat energy, they respond by increasing their degrees of freedom, by breaking internal subatomic bonds, thus enabling the degrees of freedom. When the heat gets too much for an element in one phase, because the degrees of freedom can no longer accommodate more heat, the temperature stops rising, and the whole element or substance undergoes a phase change. The temperature only starts rising again, once every atom or molecule has transitioned to the new phase! The transition of matter between these phases have unique names according to what phases the transition is between and the direction of phase transition. I.e., are we going from cold to hot or from hot to colder. Moving from a solid to a liquid is called melting. Moving from a liquid to a gas is called vapourization. Adding heat energy to the gaseous state, doesn't produce a different state of matter, just a modified gas: it produces a gas which is stripped of its electrons, and is thus ionized. Ionized gases are called plasmas. Some scientists refer to plasmas as a fourth state of matter. That doesn't matter to me, as long as you understand what a plasma is: a plasma is just an ionized gas, stripped of its one or more of its electrons.

Moving in the reverse order, from hot to cold: plasmas go through recombination, which means they stop being ionized, and gather enough electrons, to make them a neutral gas. Cooling a gas further, brings about condensation, which takes it from a gas to a liquid. This is what happens when clouds condense into rain. Further cooling turns a liquid into a solid, through a process called freezing. Thus we have: melting, vapourization, and ionization, in going from solids to plasmas. And from the opposite direction, we get recombination from an ionized gas to a neutral one. Condensation from gas to liquid, and lastly freezing, from liquid to solid. There are two more kinds of transitions between these known phases of matter that we did not talk about: sublimation, is when a solid transitions directly into a gas, without going through the liquid phase - as in "dry ice". Its opposite is called deposition. So, to make sure we really understand everything, let us find another way to classify the phases and the names of the transitions.

We will now list the opposing transitions and the phases they fall between, without directionality. Melting and freezing fall between solids and liquids. Vapourization and condensation between liquid and gas. Ionization and recombination between gases in their neutral and ionized states. Additionally, we have the rare sublimation and deposition between solids and gases. To this knowledge base we add our understanding of how Clausius' excellent term "disgregation" affects the internal structure of elements as heat is being added to them. Recall that as more and more heat is added the "disgregation," that is the space between atoms increases! This continues as the element goes from handling heat via conduction, as the atoms are initially in a rigid substructure where they can easily touch their neighbours. Thereafter, we get convection, which happens once the atoms have broken the bonds that held them in their tight rigid structure and are free to move around. Do you see why the bonds that get broken as more and more heat is introduced are called "degrees of freedom?" It's because each degree of freedom adds another way for atoms to move. Finally, there comes a stage, once enough heat has been added, a threshold of freedom that divides the atoms between being free-floating and having organized into some arrangement. What is the name of that threshold? At what point would you say the atoms go from being arranged, to being free floating? If you said "vapourization," you are correct! That threshold is reached when liquids turn into gases and their atoms become free floating! With that knowledge we can now identify a critical flaw in Kirchhoff's and Planck's concept of blackbodies. To understand why, Kirchhoff's and Planck's versions of blackbody radiation don't agree with the experimentally proven physical properties of nature, and the laws of chemistry, we must understand what a lattice is and what its significance to blackbody radiation is!

What is a LATTICE? And why is it Important?

Recall that solids and liquids have definite volumes, and are slightly compressible. What does that mean? When we say a solid or liquid, has a definite volume, but gases have no definite volume, and are highly compressible, what are we referring to? Their internal structure! That internal structure is what is called a lattice! Please find its definition below:

These arrangements of objects - atoms in our case - can take various forms. Sometimes they take a specific forms, which are called crystals. Crystals are defined as,

You'll note that the definitions are quite similar. They both include "regular ... arrangement[s]" What then is the relationship between a crystal and a lattice? A crystal is "a body that is formed ..." while a lattice is the internal structure, the "regular ... arrangement of [atoms] over an an area" within a crystal. Lattices are most often three dimensional, meaning the repeating pattern not only has width and length, but height as well. Or put another way, there is more than one layer of regularly repeating atoms. What did Kirchhoff mean when he initially defined blackbody radiation as "bodies which, for infinitely small thinness, completely absorb all rays which fall upon them?" He meant the lattice in the structure of such bodies did not have to be made of multiple layers; it could be just one layer and the substance would still be a blackbody. This is why Planck chose not to include this definition in his attempts at a proof. They would have scuppered his false claim that "only material particles can absorb heat rays, not elements of surfaces." A surface is only one layer. Hence, he explicitly states:

Shameful. He ignored the only part of the formulation of Kirchhoff's law that was actually true! So we now understand what a lattice is. And we understand that only solids and gases have them. The free floating atoms of gases cannot form lattices of "regular ... arrangements" by definition! But why do you need a lattice, to produce light? You don't! Gases don't have lattices, since their degrees of freedom include the breaking of atomic bonds. Yet, they can still gas atoms can still release photons. All individual excited gas atoms need to do to release a photon, is for their outer most electron to drop down by a quanta of energy, and a photon equaling that exact amount of quanta will be emitted. That is why Lockyer's "cool absorbing atmosphere" of the Sun produced the dark bands of the Fraunhofer lines - because the gas emitted photons as it cooled. No lattice needed. However, lattices are needed to create blackbody radiation, because the spectrum of a blackbody is a perfect continuous spectrum. We know that in two important steps. One: only condensed matter - liquids and solids - can create a continuous spectrum, as all experimental proof attests to. Second: the only substances on earth that can produce near approximations of a blackbody - graphite, lamp black, and soot - all have lattices! Put another way: no gas has every been shown to produce a continuous spectrum, nevermind a blackbody continuous spectrum. That is the important point for you to take away. Blackbody spectra are a subset of continuous spectra. You get the general range of continuous spectra, and within that range, you get the very special kind of continuous spectrum called a blackbody. So we have a nested reality: blackbody radiation is not only caused by an element that is either solid or liquid, but it caused by a solid or liquid that has a lattice. That is the experimental science - for those who believe in "following the science." For these reasons, gases and blackbodies are incompatible! Continuous spectra are produced by mechanisms - - that are incompatible with gases. And since, blackbody radiation is a typed of continuous spectrum, it can therefore not be a product of a gaseous medium! These spectral types - continuous and banded, are actually Evidence Profiles, telling us: these two profiles are produced by entities in different states of matter. Remember, it is the spectral profile, that has the final say in what phase of matter the element that produced it was in! Knowing that, we ask:

Can the Big Bang Explain the Mighty CMB?

There simple answer is, no! We have come to appreciate that blackbody radiation is produced by bodies that possess a lattice structure. They are called - blackbodies, not blackleft-over-radiation, or any of the other terms they like to refer to the Mighty CMB by. We also realize that recombination, is not the moment lattices were formed in the universe. For that, once again, you need objects. Lattices only exist in objects, not free floating atoms. Recombination, by its own proposers, is claimed to represent the moment atoms were formed: and simple ones at that. Mostly hydrogen and some helium, as the claim goes. Such an occurrence is still not enough to create a lattice. For lattices require elements to be in their condensed phases of matter, and gases are not condensed. They are vapourized - by definition. For individual atoms to emit blackbody radiation, it is not enough to have them free floating as gas atoms. They need to be arranged into a body. Free floating, versus having a defined volume, is what makes an element or substance, a gas, as opposed to a solid, or liquid. And that's why two of the defining features of a gas are: no definite shape and no definite volume! Taken together, these features mean gases must take the shape of their container, because they have no internal structure. Since, all gases have free floating atoms, this means there are NO gases that can form a lattice! But before me move on, let us clear a point that might cause confusion in the definition of a crystal as repeated below,

The above definition mentions "solidification," but crystals do not occur only in solid form. They also exist in liquid form! You know this, of course, because you are probably reading this on a liquid crystal display - or LCD! Thus, any chemical element, compound, or mixture that has a lattice is a crystal, whether in its solid or liquid state of matter - but never in a gaseous one. This is why in our earlier table of the differences between solids, liquids and gases: the first two had the common properties of having a definite volume; mid to high density, and of being slightly compressible. While gases were the opposite: they had no definite volume, low density, and were highly compressible. Why did they have low density? Because the individual gas atoms are not bound together into a "regularly repeating internal arrangement...." Remember, that the last degrees of freedom that are broken by increasing heat energy in turning a liquid into a gas are the actual chemical bonds holding the atoms together - one to the other. That transition point - from liquid to gas - marks the demarcation where lattices disappear as you keep adding heat. Or alternatively the point where lattices start to appear if you are cooling from a gas to a liquid. The ideal gas law taught us that: "Gases expand to fill the void." They can do so because they are free of the connections that create "regular repeating arrangements." Thus, as long as there is a regular repeating internal arrangement of atoms, you have non-gaseous condensed matter: in either solid or liquid form. Lastly, although it is not the point of this discussion, we will mention that not all solids or liquids are crystals. Some are amorphous internally, meaning "having no real or apparent crystalline form."

How Does All That Relate to the CMB?

Evidence Profiles! Once, we realize that the perfect blackbody spectrum of the CMB is an evidence profile, of the kind of structure that produced it, we come to understand what that profile is telling us, about the true nature, of the Mighty CMB. The closest approximations of blackbody spectra that humans have identified experimentally are those from graphite, lampblack and soot covered surfaces. All three of these entities have a lattice structure. No gas possesses a lattice! By definition. Thus the standard model of cosmology's explanation for the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, fails to account for the creation of the Mighty CMB. Its description of events does not agree with all the accumulated experimental evidence. Free floating recombined gas atoms cannot have produced the Mighty CMB, as they do not have a lattice structure! They are free floating, and not structured into any arrangement, nevermind a lattice. Thus, the Big Bang theory is falsified, for:

Of course, the term experience, is meant in the scientific context, and means providing experimental proof. As is borne out by Feynman's explanation of the scientific process below,

The Big Bang Theory's false claim about the origin of the cosmic microwave background is WRONG. "That's all there is to it." Thus, in conclusion, we can say that the only phases of matter that can produce a blackbody spectrum are solids and liquids. Gases do not have regular arrangements of their atoms, let alone lattices. While this does not prevent gases from emitting radiation, it does prohibit them from emitting blackbody radiation - which exclusively requires a LATTICE!

BLACKBODY RADIATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE PRESERVE OF STRUCTURES WITH A LATTICE. NO GASEOUS STRUCTURE ON EARTH HAS EVER BEEN SHOWN TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A CONTINUOUS SPECTRUM, LET ALONE BLACKBODY RADIATION. AS SUCH ANY CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS

ON EARTH GRAPHITE, LAMP BLACK & SOOT CLOSELY APPROXIMATE BLACKBODY RADIATION & THEY ALL HAVE LATTICES. AS SUCH WHATEVER CREATED THE MIGHTY CMB MUST ALSO HAVE A LATTICE IN HARMONY WITH THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS, SINCE TO THE SAME EFFECTS, WE MUST AS FAR AS POSSIBLE ALWAYS ASSIGN THE SAME CAUSES

Does the Big Bang Pass the THERMAL RADIATION Test?

Having already covered spectroscopy - twice, we are hyper aware of the rule that condensed matter, that is, solids and liquids, produces continuous spectra, while gases produce line spectra. That is the central lesson of spectroscopy. Moreover condensed matter is different to highly compressed matter. So, that while gases are highly compressible, this does not turn them into condensed matter. Only a phase transition called "condensation" where gases turn into liquids turns a highly compressed gas into one of the two forms of condensed matter. The second less common phase transition is from a gas directly into a solid, and that is called "deposition." These are the only two ways to turn gases into condensed matter. Highly compressing them does not qualify, and will not produce the Evidence Profile for condensed matter. The thermal radiation signatures for different phases of matter produce different Evidence Profiles and the Big Bang claim that the Mighty CMB is caused by a gas, does not hold true, for the thermal signature of gases is never a continuous spectrum.

The Lessons of Thermal Radiation & Spectroscopy

Spectroscopy is an important subject that provides a vital link to understanding our world. It was through this experimentally established discipline of the Sciences, that Lockyer discovered helium. It was through spectroscopy that it was realized that the atmosphere of the Sun must be gaseous, while the Sun itself must be made of condensed matter. For once Kirchhoff solved the 45 year old mystery of Fraunhofer lines, what the Fraunhofer lines represented could be understood as it related exactly to what Kirchhoff observed in his heating sodium in front of a lamp experiment. It was finally understood that, that the outer reaches of the Sun must be gaseous, while the background, or body as it relates to a sphere must be of condensed matter: either solids or liquids. Newton had established spectroscopy. Fraunhofer, Bunsen, Kirchhoff and Lockyer after him added much to our understanding of it. Thus humans could use the spectrum of distant objects to identify empirical evidence profiles about them. This should have made it impossible for scientists to misidentify what phase of matter a distant object, such as a star, was in. But, as is so often the case in the Sciences - there was science capture! Suddenly by 1865, the meticulously documented discoveries were sidestepped as the science of astronomy was corrupted into the form we have inherited in our time, when all the top astronomers insist that the Sun and stars are made of gases. In contradiction to all empirical evidence. It is impossible, for the "white light-giving" body of the Sun to be made of gases, for gases do not produce continuous spectra! Since when do extrapolations trump empirical evidence. If the empirical evidence has not changed, how is it that the conclusions drawn from it have changed, when there has been no new data in the meantime? Science capture, has turned the empirical sciences of Physics, into the universally acknowledge metaphysical pursuit called Cosmology. That definition of "cosmology" is not mine. Look it up for yourself in your favourite dictionary!

Once again, the Big Bang Theory fails an empirical test. This time, the Big Bang Theory has failed the thermal radiation test. Many times people think competing models - in whatever subject - each have more or less the same amount of evidence on their side. Take the geocentric versus the heliocentric models of the world, or the debate about phlogiston and oxygen. In both cases, since the explanations are opposite definitions of similar dynamics, a mind without evidence has no way of telling them apart. For instance, before Copernicus proposed and Galileo proved that the Sun was at the center of the solar system, observationally both the geocentric and heliocentric explanations seemed equally likely. Put another way to the naked eye, the Sun going around the Earth, and the Earth going around the Sun while spinning on its axis every 24 hours, created the same visual effect! This pattern repeats itself in all debates that are devoid of evidence. There are usually two equal ways of interpreting what we see. But that is not what history shows. History shows that before a correct understanding of they dynamics at hand comes to light, it is the explanations for what is happening that look equally likely - never the evidence! It the absence or misreading of the evidence that confuses people. This is why Priestley was convinced he had discovered "dephlogisticated air," when the exact opposite was actually the case. That is why we place such a heavy emphasis on Evidence Profiles. To state it another way, in the absence of evidence it is useless to debate, because both viewpoints will look plausible. On the other hand, in the presence of evidence, it no debate is necessary because the evidence only accumulates on the side of reality! Let me repeat that. In the presence of Evidence Profiles, no debate is necessary because ALL THE EVIDENCE ONLY ACCUMULATES ON ONE SIDE - THE SIDE OF REALITY. I say this because I don't want you to think the Big Bang is running out of scientific disciplines to confirm it. That would be missing the point. Once the truth is known - all the evidence will be against the Big Bang model. That's the point I am making! So don't be surprised by its continual failure to harmonize with the facts. That's what happens to dephlogisticated air or to the geocentric model of the solar system, once the evidence comes to light. We formalize our finding into a conclusion, before moving on to another area of assessment, against the Big Bang - chemistry.

THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT GASES CAN PRODUCE A CONTINUOUS SPECTRUM. ALL THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM THERMAL RADIATION & SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMS THE OPPOSITE: ONLY CONDENSED MATTER PRODUCES CONTINUOUS SPECTRA; WHILE GASES PRODUCE BANDED SPECTRA

The Chemistry Test

The Significance of Recombination

So, we have learnt how spectra are produced, and more especially, how a perfect blackbody spectrum is produced. Notice that I used the singular form, of the word "spectrum." That is because in the whole universe, there is only one perfect blackbody spectrum - and it is produced by the Mighty Cosmic Microwave Background. Graphite and soot, are the closest materials we have that approximate a blackbody spectrum, and so in practice, scientists casually label them as such, but they produce spectra that are approaching a blackbody spectrum, but are not actually perfect blackbody spectra. The Sun, itself produces a spectrum that loosely follows the curve of a blackbody spectrum, but again, it is no where near to being a blackbody spectrum. For that, it would have to fit perfectly with the curve of ideal blackbody radiation.

The significance of the Big Bang Theory's claims of a recombination epoch, are that they create an unsolvable paradox, for the Big Bang lattice mechanism would have to come before the cosmic microwave background appeared - as causes come before effects. However, recombination came after the Big Bang, and according to chemistry, you need recombination to create a lattice; and a lattice to create the Big Bang! CATCH-22! This is in addition to the fact that the Big Bang Theory is so metaphysical, its proposers didn't even realize they needed to include a lattice mechanism in order to create the perfect continuous spectrum of the Mighty CMB. The Big Bang, thus also fails basic chemistry. We are not interested in the technical impossibility of the Big Bang's claims around recombination: "how can you call something that has never been combined 'recombination?'" Notice, that we are not touching that, for the are bigger fish to fry. We are only concerned with the fact that, even if recombination happened as claimed it would still be insufficient to produce what we see. Blackbody radiation requires, not just atoms, but condensed matter atoms arranged into a lattice! Basic. Chemistry.

As we close this section, let us take heed of the words of Richard P Feynman. You will recall that in outlining the scientific method earlier, he said the first and most important step was to "guess." Einstein said: "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." I mention these statements to highlight that imagination is a big part of being a scientist trying to figure out the hidden workings of nature. In fact the key to scientific discoveries is the ability to think about a problem for so long that eventually, the resolution to its paradox presents itself to you at once. "Thus, the task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what nobody yet has thought about that which everybody sees." Those were Arthur Schopenhauer's words, and they present a great scientific truth. Progress in science comes from great minds thinking about one problem for many years, and eventually seeing something that other people have never imagined or have overlooked throughout the ages. It does not come from the way science is practiced today: where theorists come up with fanciful idea after fanciful idea. This is because nature is not the product of human imagination, and thus it will always be counterintuitive to our thought patterns. Below I add the sobering words of Feynman. Think deeply about what they mean:

This is why I have repeatedly emphasized the counter-intuitive nature of reality! The reason current philosophy fails even the basic disciplines of science is that it has disconnected itself to the rigour of physical reality by basing its assumptions and theories on false premises like Kirchhoff's law. This is why cosmology is now a branch of metaphysics! And its theories are devoid of any physical reality. As we said guessing is not wrong, you can't do science without guessing. However, the guesses have to be within the confines of what is already known, what is already empirically established! Again Feynman: he did not believe in God - he wasn't smart enough to - but the things he had worked out, he worked out well. I can't argue with how wonderful his brain was. Here's his quote, explaining the boundary of scientific imagination:

Sadly, it is because of "sidestepping" this rule that much of current science is not consistent with "everything else we know." Below, we state our conclusion about the Big Bang's validity, based on Chemistry, and thereafter, we collate all the conclusions for this section:

THE BIG BANG CANNOT SATISFY BASIC CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF A BLACKBODY SPECTRUM - A CONDENSED MATTER LATTICE. THEREFORE THE HOT GASEOUS BIG BANG PLASMA IS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

Below, we collate this page's conclusions:

BLACKBODY RADIATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE PRESERVE OF STRUCTURES WITH A LATTICE. NO GASEOUS STRUCTURE ON EARTH HAS EVER BEEN SHOWN TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A CONTINUOUS SPECTRUM, LET ALONE BLACKBODY RADIATION. AS SUCH ANY CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS

ON EARTH GRAPHITE, LAMP BLACK & SOOT CLOSELY APPROXIMATE BLACKBODY RADIATION & THEY ALL HAVE LATTICES. AS SUCH WHATEVER CREATED THE MIGHTY CMB MUST ALSO HAVE A LATTICE IN HARMONY WITH THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS, SINCE TO THE SAME EFFECTS, WE MUST AS FAR AS POSSIBLE ALWAYS ASSIGN THE SAME CAUSES

THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT GASES CAN PRODUCE A CONTINUOUS SPECTRUM. ALL THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM THERMAL RADIATION & SPECTROSCOPY CONFIRMS THE OPPOSITE: ONLY CONDENSED MATTER PRODUCES CONTINUOUS SPECTRA; WHILE GASES PRODUCE BANDED SPECTRA

THE BIG BANG CANNOT SATISFY BASIC CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF A BLACKBODY SPECTRUM - A CONDENSED MATTER LATTICE. THEREFORE THE HOT GASEOUS BIG BANG PLASMA IS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND