the greatest story ever told!

The LINK Between Temperature & Energy & A Material's Ability to Absorb, Reflect Or Transmit Incoming Light

How and why materials react to incoming energy is not a mystery. We recall from our chapter dealing with phase transitions how materials react to heat. Also we have learned through Clausius that energy is what defines temperature. This is why, as we learned again from Clausius and Lord Kelvin, it is impossible for baryonic matter to lose all its energy, or put another way, to reach absolute zero! Forget about fancy mathematics and high sounding sciencey words; the only thing we have to focus on to understand how the universe works is the basics! What we want to do is understand what factors about an element determine how it interacts with energy.

We now introduce an added layer of understanding that thermal systems give us through the variables of absorptivity, reflectivity, and transmissivity. These three variables are the result of how elements are engineered. Simply put, elements which are opaque to visible light can absorb, or reflect that incoming light. Which they choose depends on their internal chemical structure. Some objects like glass are completely transparent to visible light but opaque to other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. We are not interested in uncovering every detail of nature, just the ones that deal with the heavens and the origin and development of the universe. In that regard our focus is on blackbodies and perfect reflectors: understanding what internal chemical dynamics determine that one behaves in one way, while another in a different way. To understand that we must learn more about Energy Partition. The following information will help us to fully understand just what the Mighty CMB is and why it cannot possibly be produced by a lattice-free Big Bang! We will understand the link between how energy distribution works in elements and how that effects whether they absorb or reflect light. We are not interested in transmissivity because our point of focus is the Mighty CMB, which is a perfect absorber. The only reason we consider perfect reflectors, is to draw a line contrasting the two - which will then help us understand the nature of the Mighty CMB itself, more clearly. Many times contrast helps to highlight the main point under discussion. An additional reason is because the existence of near perfect reflectors, like silver, prove that Kirchhoff's Law that all cavities (or elements) can produce blackbody radiation is false! On to energy partition and how it affects whether an element will absorb light or whether it will reflect it.

How Energy Partition Works

Energy partition is the different ways energy get distributed within a thermodynamic system. This behaviour depends on many factors including the type of material in question. Our history with degrees of freedom will come in handy in this section. Robitaille starts by describing a simple helium gas atom, and how energy is distributed within it. Since a helium atom only has translational degrees of freedom it reduces the variables we are dealing with, allowing us to focus past the actual dynamics and understand the theory behind what is happening. It's a great place to start. Let's ask ourselves what may look like dumb questions. Why doesn't the helium gas place the energy in its lattice? Because gases don't have lattice structures. The degrees of freedom necessary to construct a lattice are only intact in solids and liquids, and have long been broken by heat energy, and disappeared from the entity by the time an element has turned into a gas. This kind of simple reasoning is the power behind understanding reality. Nothing more. But also - nothing less. We have to be diligent and apply our minds to understanding the basics. And once we have a solid basic understanding, we can apply reason - no other ingredients are necessary. It is the basic understanding that connects causes to their effects and clearly defines the mechanics used to create those effects. I cannot emphasize that enough. So, don't be discouraged by the need to read through the fundamental concepts - they are the key to unlocking the wonder you will soon be feeling. We continue with the thermal dynamics of our simple helium gas.

Here, we get the first of our big clues as to the inner workings of elements: they partition incoming energy EQUALLY between their available degrees of freedom. Two important points there: the energy is divided equally; and the fact that it is divided equally between available degrees of freedom. This is physics, not metaphysics. There are no extrapolations or empty speculations. This is reality - how things actually work. And reality always uses what is available. Reality is realistic. Follow Dr Robitaille's video for accurate illustrations of the process. This will greatly aid your understanding. Having understood the basics, he takes it up a notch by introducing a more complicated gas. Hydrogen chloride has more available degrees of freedom to divide its energy content among. Robitaille shows how equipartition works in this more complicated scenario:

Don't be scared by the fancy wording. We just break it down to its basic pieces to understand the whole. Hetero just means having parts that are different. Just like a heterosexual couple is made of a man and a woman - "hetero." The second part is nuclear, meaning having to do with the nucleus. So a "heteronuclear gas" is one that is made up of different types of nuclei - for every gas is identified by its nucleus. So, hydrogen chloride is a two atom molecule that has a hydrogen atom H and a chloride atom Cl that are attached to each other by a strong bond. How many degrees of freedom does such a molecule have available to it? Seven. So there are seven areas for the energy to go into. If the energy was 70 units, each degree of freedom would get 10 units of energy. Next comes the interesting part!

A definite "spanner thrown in the works" moment. But it shouldn't be - and this is the whole point. First let's analyze what Robitaille is describing, then we will deal with why its not a spanner in the works if we have a correct understanding of the basics.

We focus on the last part of Robitaille's quote, from the "Now what about the emission in a gas" part, onward. Here he explains that because this gas has access to 7 degrees of freedom - including the 3 degrees of freedom in its translational degrees X, Y and Z - and the fact that these degrees of freedom "DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE TOTAL EMISSION" - when a gas is heated its total emission actually goes down! We can understand the reasoning, because the incoming energy is distributed equally among the available degrees of freedom; but, it is not forwarded equally towards emission. There, only four of the available degrees of freedom contribute to the total emission as the temperature is raised. And, this in turn results in the emissions of such a gas decreasing! This is unlike in solids, where through conduction - as a rule of thumb - emission rises linearly as temperature increases. So, we understand how and why this happens, but we must still square that with the laws of thermal emission. Why do gases in such instances "act contrary to the laws of emission?" That answer is the crux of this section. The laws of emission, were discovered by Wien: who discovered that the peak of the blackbody radiation curve shifts to the left as temperature is increased - hence his law is called Wien's Displacement; Stewart - who discovered the law of equivalence between absorption and emissivity at thermal equilibrium in the absence of conduction and convection; Stefan - who discovered that the area under the blackbody radiation curve is equal to a constant called sigma times the fourth power of the temperature; and lastly Planck, who discovered that radiation energy was quantized, that is it came in discrete packets and was not continuous, and who formulated the final form of the equation for blackbody radiation, which incorporated all the previous discoveries. These four laws of emission HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GASES AND THEIR EMISSIONS OF LIGHT! The fact that gas behaviour is contrary to the laws of thermal emission IS the point! There only reason for any confusion is that Kirchhoff took laws that only applied to Blackbodies and tried to apply them to all elements irrespective of the "nature of their walls." In other words, regardless of what those elements were made of. And, hence, gases crept into a territory they have no scientifically backed foundations to be included in. But, here is the empirical truth:

And ...

The fact that typical objects have "no easily defined relationship with temperature" is telling us that there are no laws of emission for them. There are guiding principles, but no discovered laws. And this category of typical objects includes gases! We know that they don't belong in the same category as blackbodies, because the light of blackbodies consistently follows Stefan's Law, whereas when you heat "typical objects" and transition them from solids, to liquids to gases, the "type of light produced changes." The emission laws were all discovered in relation to blackbody radiation - and only blackbody radiation. We will find out shortly why blackbody radiation means there is no conduction or convection - processes that are favoured by liquids and gases. Because, the emission laws were created solely based on the dynamics of blackbody radiation, and the fact that such development was based on graphite and soot - which are solids - Robitaille points out that blackbody radiation "implies ... a solid." Later, this idea that blackbodies must be solids will be refined to include liquids with lattices, and thus, the correct term is "condensed matter." Condensed matter, we know from our section on phases of matter, is what happens when a gas transitions into a liquid. Hence "condensed matter" covers both phases of matter below the gaseous one, i.e., solids and liquids. You can thank Kirchhoff's misguided adventurism for all the confusion. Sadly, this confusion has infiltrated all of cosmology, and many other scientific disciplines. So whilst "typical" objects do not have an easy to describe relationship to temperature; there are atypical objects that do. In fact, atypical is a lousy description because that just means "in the minority." No these objects are not merely uncommon, they are exclusive, extremely unique objects in a category of one - BLACKBODIES!

Now, we're getting somewhere. Because blackbodies do have light emitting properties that are "closely related to temperature" it is around them, that the laws of emission are founded and apply - exclusively. Put another way - the laws of thermal emission are the laws of blackbody radiation! Of course in Science, as has been our long experience in this blog, with every major forward movement in the knowledge of mankind, there seems to be a force that takes us two steps back, and so it was with the discovery of blackbody radiation in the 1800s:

One step forward; two steps back! By calling it "normal" the groundwork for the confusion that the laws of blackbody radiation apply universally was laid. We realize that the development of the science of blackbody radiation is owed to substances such as graphite, lamp black and soot, for no one knew of the Mighty CMB in the 1800s. But, those substances only approximate a blackbody spectrum - they are not blackbodies! That is why in an earlier quote Robitaille said, the light emitting properties of blackbodies "are closely related to temperature." That applies only for near perfect blackbodies such as graphite. Actual blackbodies relate perfectly to the curve of a blackbody spectrum! IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE, THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE, PERFECT BLACKBODY - THE MIGHTY COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND! In any case, as scientists were developing the science of blackbody radiation through multiple, independent discoveries, what is it that they were discovering? In what ways was blackbody radiation different from all other forms of radiation?

The fact that blackbody radiation was continuous was a feature, but not a distinguishing mark, as men such as Herve Faye had determined that all "incandescent solids and liquids" did the same. No, the more important fact lay in that "scientists could infer the temperature of the emitter, by analyzing" blackbody radiation, since it was "linked in an easily described, and smoothly changing manner to temperature!" That is the point. For, "no other radiative process had this property!" Now, you know, what was different between blackbody radiation and all other forms of radiation. What kind of light do all other objects emit? "The answer is usually complicated." On the other hand: what kind of light do blackbodies emit? Blackbody radiation is linked in an "easily described and smoothly changing manner to temperature." Again we ask: how is the intensity of light from typical objects defined in terms of temperature? For typical objects "the intensity of light emission has no easily defined relationship with temperature." Whilst, for blackbodies the situation is very different, for: "as the temperature of a blackbody is increased, the emitted light changes in a predictable manner." The point is clear. Blackbodies are unique and different from all other objects in the whole universe. But let's be more specific, as there is only one, actual blackbody, in existence: The Mighty Cosmic Microwave Background is unique and different from all other objects in the universe! This difference plays a vital role, for everything we know about the universe we have learnt through light! That means the Mighty CMB has things to teach us that we can not learn empirically from any other observable source! I hope you are starting to see why I treat it with so much respect!

Hence, the corrupt nature, of shrouding the authentic uniqueness of the cosmic microwave background in uniform sameness with all other radiation. Hence, the deviancy of pretending the cosmic microwave background is no different from the light inside your oven. When Big Bang theorists and Kirchhoff and Planck before them, insist that all matter can produce black radiation they are not telling you something; they are hiding something from you - the wonderful story, that only the Mighty CMB can tell mankind! That is why their actions - whether, intentional or accidental (it doesn't matter: the damage is the same) - are so wrong and damaging. Because they are using light in the exact opposite way from how nature presents it. Light is supposed to illuminate. They use it to be-darken. Light is supposed to enlighten. They use it to confuse. Light is supposed to expose. They use it to cover-up. Light is supposed to educate. They use it to miseducate. For them, the light at the end of the tunnel doesn't represent growing scientific knowledge, but the proverbial train coming in the other direction - in the form of the obstruction of true scientific knowledge. It would be bad enough if all this obfuscation was self-funded, but they have crowdfunded the deception to the very people who are victimized by it in the form of taxes. That makes the corruption, not only malign, but perverse. But there is a silver lining: if so much effort has gone into obscuring the truth about the Mighty CMB, what it has to tell us must be eye-opening. Eye-opening it is. And all of that is just around the corner. For now, let us exercise a little more patience, while we get back to our journey of learning and the unrelenting application of reason.

A curious aspect of the development of blackbody radiation theory was how it was applied practically. The methodology used is important to realizing that pre-Kirchhoff, everyone appreciated that blackbody radiation was different to all other radiation. Heres a snippet. Following along in the video might help you to visualize the process. See if you can pick out the telltale detail:

Did you catch it? If all heated cavities contain blackbody radiation, as Kirchhoff claimed, what need would there be to place objects inside blackbody enclosures to accurately know their temperatures? Once the object was at thermal equilibrium with its heating mechanism, they could have just measured its temperature accurately using the light from the oven instead. Why the extra step? Because, of course the radiation in the oven was not a blackbody spectrum. It did not have a strict relationship between wavelength or frequency and temperature, as Stefan's law established for blackbodies:

It is in practice not theory that the truth comes out. Only blackbodies emit light that is the fourth power of their temperature multiplied by the sigma constant. We have come to learn how energy partition works in elements. And that the dynamics of gases are much less predictable than those of solids and liquids. We also learnt that gases, due to their lattice-free structure prefer to use convection to handle heat, rather than conduction or radiation. In fact for some gases, adding heat decreases their emissions, instead of increasing them. Most typical objects do not follow easily discernible laws of emission. The four emission laws of Wien, Stewart, Stefan and Planck do not apply to them. Moreover, in the three ways that objects have to react to incoming radiation: conduction, convection and radiation, the emission laws only looked at and created laws for radiation - not the convection favoured by gases. As such, they are not suited to gases, for they were developed through experiments using graphite and soot - solids. Since gases do not favour radiation and the emission are all about radiation, we realize that they are based on solids, not gases. The emission laws require a lattice to produce the photons needed for blackbody radiation - and gases do not possess lattices. Only condensed matter has lattices. Why do we focus on the differences between condensed matter and gases, specifically? Because the miseducation of Lauren Hill insists that the only true blackbody that exists - the Mighty CMB - is a product of a gas, and can be produced without a lattice. All evidence is to the contrary!

In closing this sub-section about how energy partition works, we have come to understand why gases sometimes increase their radiation with heat and sometimes not. We have come to understand what energy partition is: the distribution of energy according to the available degrees of freedom. But we have also come to appreciate that not all degrees of freedoms contribute to the total light emitted by an element. In many cases degrees of freedom can accept incoming energy but not make it available for emission, meaning, even as the temperature rises, the light coming from a gas, for instance, can decrease. For these and many other reasons we have covered, we now appreciate that typical objects are not included in the the laws of thermal emission formulated by Wien, Stefan and Planck. The laws of thermal emission and their equations are confined only to the Mighty CMB in absolute measure, but can be roughly approximated by results from near perfect blackbodies, such as graphite, soot and lamp black. However, this knowledge still leaves one area of murkiness in our minds. What is it about blackbody radiation that gives it that exacting relationship to temperature? The relationship that the area under a blackbody radiation curve is equal to a constant times the fourth power of its temperature - Stefan's Law. Let us next look at the precise difference between a perfect absorber and a perfect reflector, so we can discern what makes the Mighty CMB so special.

DEFINING the Clear Distinction Between Perfect Absorbers & Perfect Reflectors

Only the laws proven by experiment and observation count as Physics. Kirchhoff's Law, as we have seen falls outside of that range. It is metaphysics. We will not be considering it as a contributing factor in our investigation going forward. However, we will highlight whenever it is falsified by the evidence. We have also defined energy partition and seen energy distribution in action through the examples of the simple helium atom and the heteronuclear gas, hydrogen chloride. So far, so good. We now want to understand what is it about the structure of a perfect absorber and the structure of a perfect reflector that makes them different to each other and interact with radiation in opposite ways? This is a good point to stress some facts. In nature there is only one perfect absorber, the Mighty CMB. Graphite and soot are very good approximations of blackbody radiation, but they are not blackbodies. Further, polished silver is a very good approximation of a perfect reflector, but no such entity has yet been discovered. So in talking about a perfect reflector, it is correct to refer to such an element as idealized, because it is not real. On the other hand, it is not correct to speak of an "idealized" perfect absorber, because such an entity is not theoretical; it exists - the Mighty Cosmic Microwave Background. This topic is critical to uncovering the secrets of the universe! Only by grasping its details will we come to appreciate how truly great the Mighty CMB is. We have already debunked the Big Bang as a viable theory for the beginning and/or development of the universe. This refinement to our understanding is not about proving a useless metaphysical speculation to be false, but about understanding why something special is so valuable to the human race! The Mighty CMB is the most important inanimate object in the Cosmos - and after this section you will understand why! Let us start by examining the mechanisms that lead to perfect absorption, and perfect reflection. We consider the perfect scenarios to reduce the number of variables we are dealing with. We understand that in real life, only one object is a perfect absorber, and there are no perfect reflectors.

What Thermodynamic PROCESS Defines a Perfect Absorber?

It is ENERGY DISTRIBUTION that Determines that an Element is an Absorber

It is where energy is distributed to that determines the dynamic effect it will have. And it is what degrees of freedom are available to the element that determines where energy is directed to, how it is partitioned. We have learnt of equipartition, now we must consider that the different subsystems can operate simultaneously, that in such cases they are often disconnected from each other. When heat is introduced to a solid for instance, the rule of thumb is that conduction will increase in a predictable linear way. Thereafter, once some degrees of freedom become available through the breaking of atomic bonds, conduction hands over to convection to carry on the process of trying to reach thermal equilibrium. In this scenario conduction and convection are like runners in a relay, and they operate in series - one after the other - and not at the same time! But as elements and compounds get more complicated and as they transition from solids to liquids and gases the situation can look very different. Also, this is not the case with object which can have multiple subsystems in play at the same time. Often convection and one or both of the other processes can take place SIMULTANEOUSLY. For instance the Sun obviously radiates light, but it also has convection currents. For this reason it cannot be a blackbody. And, indeed, while its spectrum is a close approximation of a blackbody, it is only an approximation - not a perfect fit. What is important to note in such cases is that the subsystems often operate independently of each other, in a disconnected, uncoupled way. That means, for instance, that the energy in the conduction bands has nothing to do with the energy in the radiative process. Thus, an object can use multiple variables in dealing with energy partition. This in turn affects it emissivity. I will use examples of perfect, or ideal substances to make the point clearly. A perfectly absorbing object would only use one of the three variables, the vibrational degrees of freedom to generate photons for radial emission. Being a perfect absorber means, it absorbs all incoming light into its vibrational lattice, and then immediately emits it out again. Robitaille clarifies the point about energy distribution in a perfect absorber - in a blackbody:

Why must the blackbody sample "not have access to convection, or conduction?" Because, those dynamics would redistribute the energy in such a way, that the object would no longer be a blackbody. For instance, if the "sample" coped with increased energy through conduction, instead of a vibrational lattice, there would be no radiation emitted. The sample's overall temperature would just increase, as conduction transferred heat from one atom or molecule to the next - until a new, higher, thermal equilibrium was reached for the object. So the energy distribution determines how entities react to energy, but that response is itself guided by the properties of the element, or object in question. To make the point clearer, let's pretend that chemistry doesn't exist, and that we can direct the energy, any how we want in our sample. What would happen if we directed all the energy to the convection currents - what would that mean? It would mean our object had zero chance of being a blackbody, because blackbodies need a lattice to create the photons they emit. Convection currents and vibrational lattices are binary realities. It's either you have one or the other. Why is that? Think of heating a thick viscous liquid. What happens as you increase the temperature? The liquid becomes less viscous, it becomes runnier because subatomic bonds are being broken, as new degrees of freedom come into play at the subatomic level. What allows the atoms which were previously in a lattice to now have mobility in the liquid? The fact that the bonds binding them to their neighbouring atoms have been broken! It is the breaking of such bonds, that introduces additional degrees of freedom. But, it also represents the disappearance of any vibrational lattice structure that the element might have had. That is the main point about convection currents: their presence means the object no longer has a lattice! Both liquids and gases can use convection to redistribute heat internally.

But if it is the vibrational lattice, that produces radiation, then how do gases produce light? Because radiation can be produced by excited electrons falling back down to a lower energy level and releasing a photon as a result. Vibrational lattices are not necessary to produce radiation. They are necessary to produce blackbody radiation! Let us draw another key distinction between the dynamics of light producing vibrational lattices and conduction and convection.

Another Key Distinction Between RADIATION & the Other Two Variables

Radiation works differently at thermal equilibrium than conduction or convection. That was the lesson of Stewart's Law of equivalence. That equivalence was established at thermal equilibrium. What does that mean? Take careful note of what happens to each of our three variables - conduction, convection and radiation - once thermal equilibrium is reached:

Conduction and convection are ways for elements to try and achieve internal thermal equilibrium. Whilst, radiation is a process to reach external thermal equilibrium with the surroundings. Once it has been reached, these mechanical activities cease, and the element is at equilibrium. What does "cease" mean in the context of radiation? When an object is not at thermal equilibrium through radiative processes, it means one of two things: either there is more incoming radiation, than there is outgoing, in which case the temperature would rise; or, there is more radiation being emitted, than there is being absorbed. In which case, the temperature will go down. But what happens when there is thermal equilibrium in a radiative process - does the radiation stop? No - it equalizes. It goes on, but in balanced proportions: where there is, as much radiation being absorbed, as there is being emitted - from where we get Stewart's Law of equivalence. Blackbody radiation then, doesn't stop! It's either more emission than absorption, more absorption than emission, or an equal amount of both - thermal equilibrium. Our takeaway is that blackbody radiation, once started, never stops! That is an important distinction - for reasons we will find out more about later. The startling thing about blackbodies is that they produce radiation at ANY temperature! That's an important point! Here's the proof. The Mighty CMB is currently at 2.75 Kelvin. That's colder than any thing you know. On the day of writing the South Pole was -28.20C, that's 244.95 Kelvin. The Mighty CMB is more than 240 degrees colder than that - and yet it continually produces light! How? Let's take a closer look at the nearest thing we have to a perfect blackbody on earth - graphite - to gain more understanding.

The Lessons of Graphite!

The tutorial video with very helpful illustrations from Robitaille is entitled What is the Sun Made of? Evidence from the Solar Spectrum. As usual all the timestamps are cited with the quotes. We are going to take a quick lesson is the structure of graphite. Wikipedia defines graphite as: "a crystalline form of the element carbon. It consists of stacked layers of graphene." In turn graphene is: "is an allotrope of carbon consisting of a single layer of atoms arranged in a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice." Simple enough. Figure 73, shows a graphic of what a layer of graphene looks like.

Figure 73 - Nice trick, but we SEE right through it!

"Infinitely thin"

Objects such as graphene are made of layers. This is what Kirchhoff and Planck meant when they said a blackbody could be "infinitely thin." Depending on the substance, it takes several layers to start approaching the capacity of a near blackbody. This knowledge is something that has great bearing on our understanding of the only true blackbody in the universe - the Mighty CMB/MUMBR!

As for "allotrope," that just means one of two or more possible forms of an element within the same phase of matter. So graphene is one form of the lattice structures that carbon atoms can take in their solid state of matter. And graphite is made of multiple layers of graphene stacked one on top of the other. Again one layer of this form of a carbon lattice in the solid form is called graphene. Multiple layers are called graphite. As for what graphite looks like, it is what is used to make pencils. Robitaille gives some technical detail:

The video comes with excellent graphics, which you need to look at unless you are very familiar with the topic. The reason carbon has many allotropes within the same phases of matter is because it has many ways to arrange its covalent bonds. So after explaining the basic carbon atom structure in the last quote, Robitaille now tells us the specific arrangement it takes in graphene:

Don't worry too much about the lattice details, just get the gist of the dynamics from the video. Having seen what the pairing of carbon atoms looks like in graphene, we focus on the dynamic details:

There is much to unpack here. First the unpaired electrons, the ones not used up in pairing are free to move around, and can be "viewed as delocalized over the entire structure." Of course we know electrons can absorb and emit light. And that is what these electrons can do over the "entire structure" - since they are "delocalized." In case you need clarification of that term:

That should clear up any confusion about "delocalized" atoms. In chemistry, whenever "atoms are shared between multiple atoms" they are free to move around between those multiple atoms. If they are part of a lattice, then they are free to move around the "entire structure" of that lattice. Simple enough. The other important detail from Robitaille's quote was that "graphene absorbs light of different frequencies." We recall that that is one of the true outstanding features of blackbodies. We are about to find out how it works. "The entire graphene layer also vibrates. This vibration enables the delocalized p shell electrons to absorb light at different frequencies." Simple. Elegant. Effective. Can you see the difference between the convoluted mess that is man-made speculations and the simplicity and economy of nature? In this very simple one nano-layer structure you have the all the foundational ingredients for creating a close approximation of a blackbody. Firstly you have delocalized electrons, which are responsible for absorbing light. Then the vibrating nature of the entire graphene layer enables those delocalized electrons to not only absorb light, but to do so at different frequencies. But there is still something missing - the mechanism that links the wavelength of a blackbody's radiation to the fourth power of its temperature:

The link! The delocalized electrons absorb light and are free to move, but they don't move in any which way. They don't float in Space. They move freely along the entire lattice. like a train on train tracks. There's no off-roading here, they move along their single layer graphene lattice. This lattice vibrates, which broadens the range of frequencies the electrons can absorb light at, enabling them to absorb light at many different frequencies. And just like heat impacts the kinetic energy of atoms, here the temperature impacts the atomic-linked structure we call a lattice. And it does so in a very specific way, in a way that is "absolutely" linked. From this absolute linking of vibrations and temperature we get the relationship which bears itself out in Stefan's Law! Thus, Robitaille concludes that: "At a fundamental level, [blackbody spectra] are telling us about the vibrational state of the nuclei which make up the lattice." Isn't Science wonderful! Amazing how so manhy so-called scientists refuse to "follow it?"

If that is true of an approximation of a blackbody, how much more applicable is it to an actual blackbody? THE MIGHTY CMB IS NOT RELIC RADIATION FROM A LATTICE-FREE BIG BANG. IT IS A PERFECT CONDENSED MATTER LATTICE - THE ONLY ONE IN THE UNIVERSE!

We have indeed learned a lot from our brief study of graphite and its single nano-layers of graphene! Now you understand why the Mighty CMB can and will always emit blackbody radiation even though its at such a low temperature. As long as it vibrates, it will radiate a perfect blackbody spectrum for that temperature. The third law of thermodynamics guarantees that it will never stop vibrating and thus we will always keep receiving its signals. That is the answer to why a phenomena discovered in the mid-60s is still streaming radiation our way continually. As we said before: vibrational lattices are not necessary to produce radiation, they are necessary to produce blackbody radiation. And, now you know the how and why. Further, we now understand why this cannot take place with convection - the preferred method for gases to handle heat - as to have convection you need to break all the bonds of the lattice. For similar reasons "conduction" cannot produce blackbody radiation. If for no other reason, because Stewart's law of equivalence is a principle defined by thermal equilibrium! Conduction ceases at thermal equilibrium. So conduction cannot be the process by which blackbody radiation is produced. All the other 3 laws of thermal equilibrium are also based around thermal equilibrium.

What Thermodynamic PROCESS Defines a Perfect Reflector?

What Does REFLECTIVITY Mean?

Understanding this subject has the powerful effect of debunking Kirchhoff's law, in addition to all the other proofs we have already provided. This proof focuses on the question: what is it about the constitution of an element that allows it to be called a reflector? Again, just as with defining the perfect absorber/emitter, it is all about energy dynamics and management. What an element uses to deal with incoming radiation energy - conduction, convection or an emission lattice; and in what ratios - is what determines whether it is an absorber, and hence emitter, or whether it is a reflector of radiation energy. We have seen with absorbers/emitters, that the mechanism for handling incoming radiation is energy partition to the lattice structure in the solid, or liquid phases of matter. Perfect reflectors do not have this feature, instead they have conduction bands and none of the incident radiation energy is absorbed into the element - into a lattice or any other internal structure. Thus, no photons can be generated for re-emission, for none were absorbed. We take time to point out something which can confuse some if not clarified. Silver has a lattice structure, yet it is still the most reflective metal. This is not strange. After all, most condensed matter has some sort of lattice structure, but only one is a blackbody. Why? Because of energy partition and the type of lattice it has. Though silver has a lattice, its lattice does not meet the requirements of being able to absorb and emit light. Further, its energy is contained or distributed in its conduction bands, not the lattice - hence, it is the best reflector and not a blackbody. The lattice needs to have certain features. The sliver lattice does not possess those features. On the other hand gases are not blackbodies becasue they don't have a lattice at all! So we see both dynamics at play: you can have a lattice and not be a blackbody if your lattice is not of the required type and all your energy is not distributed to it. Another scenario is where you don't have a lattice at all - as is the case with all gases. In such cases, you will also not produce blackbody radiation. The only scenario then that produces blackbody radiation requires two requirements: a vibrational lattice; and all your energy partition must go to that lattice. Consider:

This is where we make a crucial distinction between perfect absorbers and perfect reflectors. For perfect absorbers, the temperature of incident radiation alters their temperature until thermal equilibrium is reached with their surroundings. For a perfect reflector the temperature of incoming radiation has nothing to do with the temperature of the walls of the element, and the conduction bands that are found within those walls. They are decoupled, unlinked, disconnected from each other. The walls, or temperature of a perfect reflector change their temperature through conduction - not absorption. This is well illustrated in a thought experiment Robitaille does in one of his videos. You can watch it here*. The relevant part is from 0:52 seconds to 2:23. Robitaille explains the set up of the experiment:

The above quote clarifies much, if we are paying attention. First, we come to understand why and how graphite is different from a true blackbody. Graphite has some energy in its "electronic conduction bands." The extent to which it has such energy stored in conduction bands, means that energy is not available to be converted into photons, which would then be immediately emitted. See below:

And ...

Of course, a perfect emitter and perfect absorber are one and the same thing. The important fact to realize is that to have an emissivity of 1, to be a perfect absorber - a true blackbody - all the the energy has to be partitioned to the radiation producing lattice. In such an element: the "vibrations of its atoms in its walls are responsible" for both "thermal conduction and for producing the radiation field." We remember the enlightening example of graphene. An important aspect of this picture is that "no energy remains in the walls!" It is precisely because no energy remains in the walls that this element can be a perfect emitter. Since there is no energy left in conduction, or any energy in convection currents, the element is a perfect blackbody. It is in this respect that graphite differs from the Mighty CMB. The Mighty CMB "unlike graphite ... has no energy in its electronic conduction bands." We know that, because the cosmic microwave background is the only perfect blackbody in existence. Which means it is the only element in existence that doesn't have any energy in its walls. All its incoming energy is immediately transferred to the radiation field. Inversely, in the perfect reflector, all "the energy is immediately transferred into the conduction bands." Understanding the difference between absorption/emission and reflection is just that easy. Robitaille continues with his thought experiment:

Robitaille gives us the two opposing examples we are looking for: the one with a perfect blackbody; and the second with a perfect reflector. Again, we see the difference between silver and the "idealized" metal that we know does not exist. They are "similar ... except that a 100% of the energy ... is trapped within the electronic conduction bands" for the idealized element. That is why, though pretty close, silver is not a perfect reflector - it does not trap all of its energy in its conduction bands. I trust that the basics are clear. It is the ability to partition energy to conduction bands, or to the radiation field, that determines if an element is a reflector or an absorber. In case you are confused by the term "radiation field" Robitaille is not suggesting that elements emit radiation internally, for:

And ...

There is no internal radiation field in elements. Robitaille just means the energy goes to the lattice mechanism, which is responsible for generating photons for emission to the surroundings. His description of the perfectly reflecting material makes it clear why it can't emit photons - it always partitions its energy into its "readily available [conduction] bands." This is the definition of a perfect reflector. We have simultaneously discovered the difference between perfect reflectors and perfect absorbers. Both partition 100% of their energy into one and only one area. But they partition it to different areas. The perfect reflector to its "electronic conduction bands." And, the perfect absorber, to its photon emitting lattice - its radiation-field-producing mechanism. It is noteworthy that in real materials the energy partition is not 100%. Real materials partition their energy into more than one area and "always possess energy in [their] walls!" That is why they are neither perfect reflectors or perfect absorbers. You need exclusive energy partitioning into only one area for that. If they partition most of their energy into the conduction bands, they are good reflectors like silver; if they partition most of it to a photon generating lattice, then they are good absorbers/emitters like graphite. This applies to all materials, except the unique entity called: the "cosmic microwave background." As a general rule, then:

Now, consider another of Robitaille's quotes below, and see if you can explain it:

Why is the definition of a blackbody: where the "emission of an object will be equal to its absorption" only valid when there is "no convection or conduction?" The answer is straightforward: Perfect absorbers and indeed reflectors only exist under condition where all the energy goes into only one partition. Where there are multiple systems in operation at the same time, for instance, a radiation field producing photons and conduction bands, then by definition such a system can neither be a perfect absorber nor a perfect reflector. Since those two absolutes require all the energy to be partitioned in one area, it means there can be no other process operating - no other area containing processing energy. Hence, since blackbodies are a radiation based phenomenon, there can be no conduction or convection in a perfect blackbody. This also gives us another reason why no system with convection can be a blackbody. How? Because, by its very nature convection currents are a transfer of heat from one part of a system that is hotter to another part that is cooler. Remember, heat transfer only takes place where there is a temperature difference - where one area is hotter than another. In the absence of such a temperature gradient, heat cannot be transferred. But convection currents are defined as a transfer of heat from one area to another - meaning they only occur at disequilibrium! Yet, Stewart's law of equivalence tells us that emission and absorption occur equally. That only happens at equilibrium. This is why thermal equilibrium is so important to everything we are discussing. It is the condition that separates the wheat from the chaff. It is through thermal equilibrium that we discern the major difference between conduction, convection and the ability to emit photons according to the equivalence law of Stewart. For thermal equilibrium defines the ideal parameter for blackbody radiation. While, the other two processes stop once thermal equilibrium is reached. Below Robitaille quotes Planck as saying:

The "temperature" being "everywhere the same" and not varying "with time" means no convection. Such equilibrium conditions also mean "on account of the uniformity in temperature, no conduction of heat takes place." Again, Robitaille states the importance of realizing that conduction and convection are not compatible with thermal equilibrium by referring to Planck's understanding on these issues:

The Special Significance of THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM

Why is this so important that we have relentlessly emphasized the same point repeatedly? Because of the conclusions that it leads to. Once you see its connection to the lies of the Big Bang, everything becomes clear. The scales will fall from your eyes. For instance ask yourself: "What is the primary way gases have to deal with increased heat?" Think back to our section on the phases of matter and how and why matter transitions from one phase to another as we keep adding heat to it. Recall these questions and answers:

That summarizes the general rules of thumb as to where conduction, convection and radiation apply. Of course, we will not be simple-minded about this, forming strict rules of application that are not in line with reality. Gases can radiate, and liquids can utilize convection. These are merely guidelines where each of the three variables most easily applies. What we want to focus on is that the laws of emission didn't touch conduction and convection "only terms of radiation," and they are "only true if the object can be treated as a blackbody." Moreover: "For radiation, we know that blackbodies emit light depending on the fourth power of their temperature, according to Stefan's Law. ... Metals, though, never follow this rule; neither do gases!" What does all that - especially the last part - really mean? Robitaille answers: "this implies that a solid was used." In other words, the whole development of the theory of blackbodies was based on solids: it was based on graphite and soot, and strongly suggests that all blackbodies are solids which exclusively use radiation as their means of attaining thermal equilibrium. This is plainly evident, since an object cannot be at thermal equilibrium while using conduction and convection. Both of those process entail a difference of temperature in the system, i.e., non-equilibrium. Because gases mostly use convection to attain thermal equilibrium, and because they don't have lattice structures - they are ruled out as blackbodies. Put another way: gases have none of the features of blackbodies. They don't use radiation to reach thermal equilibrium, and they don't have a lattice to produce a continuous blackbody spectrum. As for blackbodies themselves, the only thing we can say definitively is that they must be made of condensed matter. For lattices only exist in condensed matter. And you need a lattice to create photons. Here is more on that:

Plain enough to understand. Below is another hurdle for proposing that gases are the source of blackbody radiation as Big Bang Theorists do when they claim the Mighty CMB is a product of the gaseous lattice-free "surface of last scattering":

And that's the connection! Isn't science wonderful! That's a statement, not a question.

What Does TRANSMISSIVITY Mean?

We covered reflectivity in-depth because that is what is relevant to our discussions on standing waves and the their fundamental differences to blackbody radiation - as proof that Kirchhoff's Law is false. It is only for the sake of completeness that we cover transmissivity - so, we will do so very briefly. Transmissivity just means objects that allow radiation to pass through them - like glass and water in liquid form. At this point it is important to note that reality is complex. Just like water is transparent in liquid form, but not so much in solid form. Other elements and substances have similar variability under different conditions - some, even within the same phase of matter. For instance, glass is completely transparent to visible light, but it is opaque to infrared radiation. We need not concern ourselves with transmissivity, for it has no bearing on blackbodies. For, as perfect absorbers, all blackbodies have an absorptivity of 1, meaning they are opaque! As per our equation:

1 = Absorptivity + Reflectivity + Transmissivity

1 = 1 + 0 + 0

Giving Credit where it is DUE: It Takes Courage to Stand Up for what you Know is Right

We must acknowledge PM Robitaille, whose tenacious nature, and solid grasp of the basic and advanced physics involved exposed the fundamental flaws in Kirchhoff's law and thus Planck's law. It is undeniable, that he is currently the champion of defending the validity of Stewart's Law over Kirchhoff's corruption of it! I do not know if any other men or women of science from the days Kirchhoff proposed his preposterous abomination until our time, have had the courage and tenacity to fight against it and prove it wrong. Perhaps there were. Hopefully there were. In any case it was through his critical thinking that I came upon many of the proofs that Kirchhoff's Law is incorrect! For that the world, not only I, owes him a debt of gratitude. It was through the tireless efforts of the softly spoken Robitaille that the shocking truth that Kirchhoff's law has neither a valid theoretical nor any experimental proof(s) was revealed!

This is in contrast to what F.A. Jenkins and H.E. White claim in their textbook on about the fundamentals of light,

Their statement is true, with the exception of Kirchhoff's and Planck's laws! There are no known proofs to Kirchhoff's claims that any and all opaque cavities in thermal equilibrium produce blackbody radiation! As for Planck, his equation is correct, but is limited only to blackbody radiation! Robitaille, as I have detailed earlier began to study this topic because he is an accomplished inventor, having engineered leading tech in the medical field of magnetic resonance imaging MRI - which uses standing waves. It was through his intimate knowledge of cavities that create standing waves that he came to question the validity of Kirchhoff's Law, and Planck's claims of universality. But MRI technology is not the only place where standing waves are used. Cellphone technology and lasers also depend on their existence. Their presence in the known, experimentally proven laws of physics falsifies Kirchhoff's claims that all cavities create blackbody radiation. Almost the exact opposite is true. No cavities create blackbody radiation - except the wonderful, Mighty CMB. We can add graphite and soot as close approximations of the blackbody spectrum. The truth is that some materials, like polished silver, actually create standing waves instead! Of course, this is important to our study of the Big Bang, because cosmologists have based their misunderstanding of our universe on their mistaken belief that Kirchhoff's Law is valid! Shame. Again, Robitaille,

Because Kirchhoff mistakenly - or intentionally, we do not know - corrupted Stewart's law and added metaphysical assumptions to it that neither matched with reality, nor any experimental proofs already known in physics, these corruptions of understanding have crept into the body of knowledge called "Science!" Again, we see the familiar pattern of how ultra credentialed Intellectuals corrupt the stellar work of the humble pioneers who immediately preceded them, and always during their lifetime! This is how Maxwell bamboozled the less educated and mentally decaying Michael Faraday! This is how, again Maxwell, this time aided by Boltzmann, tried to run roughshod over Clausius' visionary and more importantly complete understanding of entropy! This is how Kirchhoff, literally bullied the humble and less prominent Stewart out of the kudos he deserved for his discovery of the law of equivalence, barely a year after he made the discovery! Kirchhoff, in typical Intellectual charlatan fashion made the simple grotesquely complicated, with the result that the less mathematically capable Stewart, gave way, and allowed Kirchhoff to bully him out of his empirically derived law. Facing Kirchhoff's sustained attacks, Stewart, as quoted by Robitaille, replied:

The trickery is in the complicated jargon, and the use of mathematics to cover any ill-conceived notions. What the non-mathematically inclined fail to appreciate is that maths is a language! And, just like any other language, it can be used to convey truths, or to tell lies. The latter is particularly common within the scientific community. The fact that mathematics is a subject, which many shy away from, just at its mere mention, gives those who would abuse it the power to hide behind its esoteric symbols, knowing that their metaphysical ideas will thus escape the scrutiny that would prove their nonphysical nature - and lead to their demise. It rests on Hossenfelder to once again make this obvious point, publicly,

Of course, we all realize that Hossenfelder is a no nonsense believer in the nonsense that is cosmic evolution. As such, she has no time for the Bible, but equally, no time for what she considers to be useless parts of the sciences. Thus, you should not be surprised by her derision of the Biblical narrative. The reason we quote her here, is the fact that she equates the lies that scientists tell using the language of mathematics, to what she calls "tales of creation." In her mind those tales are pure fiction - mythology. And that's the point: she realizes that physicists use mathematics in this way. In the following quote, from a different video, she laments this fact, and why the general public allow it,

That is what Kirchhoff did when he wrested Balfour Stewart's accomplishment out of his hands. But the damage was more far reaching, for his replacement theory was not only not empirically tested, it also didn't have any theoretical proofs. More than that, it was wrong! Planck used it as a basis for his own ideas and the scientific community has in turn used Planck's ideas as the foundation for their whole model of cosmology, and descriptions for how the universe came to be. It is for this reason, that peppered through any scientific discussion on the subject, you will also hear reference made to the so-called universal quantities of Planck time, temperature, mass and length. In reality, none of these concepts are universal, that is, none of them are what they claim to be - the natural units of universal measurement. Recall what did Jordan Peterson say about fundamental ideas:

What happens when the most fundamental ideas of a belief system are debunked? In this case, the whole Jenga-like edifice of the standard model of cosmology - as Ekberg described it - is founded on Kirchhoff's law being true. The consequence of that law being false speak for themselves, and impact many other areas besides astrophysics. It should be obvious to you, that if cosmic evolution is incorrect, then terrestrial evolution is also incorrect. For the cosmic evolution of the universe is fundamental to evolutionary biology. They are nested realities - with the Big Bang being the more fundamental of the two. Biological evolution is now an idea so pervasive, it is taken as gospel throughout the scientific disciplines, and much of larger society. That has its own episode, and will be dealt with in detail at that time, but I would have been remiss if I did not mention it, as it is so closely allied to the supposed cosmic evolution of the universe. How do Big Bang Theorists incorporate Kirchhoff's ideas into the foundations of their descriptions of the universe? The central part of Kirchhoff's claims, was that all cavities produced blackbody radiation, and that such radiation was only a function of the radiation being at thermal equilibrium and the frequency of the radiation. Regardless of the nature of the walls. This erroneous idea has led scientists to believe that all that was needed to create the Mighty CMB and its perfect blackbody radiation was thermal equilibrium, without any need for a physical mechanism to produce the necessary photons! Hence, they create models where the universe cools to 3000 kelvin, and voila! A perfect blackbody spectrum is produced. They then recycle this empty concept applying it at each subsequent stage of universal development. So, that cosmo-genesis, the origin and development of the Cosmos is said to begin with collapsed gas clouds that turned into stars - also based on Kirchhoff's Law. Thereafter, these stars turn into - the non-existent - black holes, an fantasy also based on Kirchhoff's Law. You can see how many current beliefs Kirchhoff's Law is fundamental to.

The only problem is, by their own admission, their infant universe at the moment of last scattering - a physical impossibility - would not have been at thermal equilibrium. Recall that their explanation for the fluctuations in the Mighty CMB, is that they were produced at the same moment as the cosmic microwave background, and by the same mechanism, the moment of last scattering. Therefore, since there were fluctuations at that moment, the ambient temperature could not have been at thermal equilibrium - as the Mighty CMB definitively proves it was! How did cosmology find itself so dependent on an unfounded and incorrect theory? Because of lack of critical thinking by those who came after Kirchhoff and Planck,

"They have never thought about the problem!" How sad. As I have stated before, Robitaille, in assessing the claims of Big Bang cosmology, has correctly rejected their description's lack of a physical mechanism for creating blackbody radiation. However, he has made the mistake of conflating the claims of Big Bang Theorists with the features of the Mighty CMB. He doesn't believe it exists, because it has been defined in a way that he knows does not agree with the requirements of physical reality. However, the correct conclusion is not that the cosmic microwave background does not exist, but that it has been mis-characterized as relic radiation. When, in fact, it is an actual entity, that does have a lattice, and can thus produce blackbody radiation! We draw our conclusion:

THE MIGHTY CMB IS NOT RELIC BLACKBODY RADIATION. IT IS A CONDENSED MATTER BLACKBODY THAT CONTINUALLY PRODUCES A PERFECT BLACKBODY SPECTRUM - THE ONLY ONE IN THE UNIVERSE

Those who blindly accepted Kirchhoff's assertions as law, have used that law to their detriment, for it has now led them to run headlong into the brick wall of actual reality - Physics. Metaphysics was always due to be reconciled to the science of Physics. And those who believed otherwise, were either gullible, or self-deluded. They have no one to blame but themselves for their lack of critical thinking - and the precarious position they have steered all of mankind into! The comeback is going to be catastrophic! Their respective disciplines have been ringing the alarm for decades now, through the highlighting of logical inconsistencies in their theories. But whenever, such are brought to light, instead of confronting the uncomfortable questions head on, as someone who was in search of truth, might be expected to, such Intellectuals instead doubled down, by creating even more outlandish descriptions of reality. Bjorn Ekeberg was accurate in his assessment of the field:

And we all know the root cause of that reluctance. Intellectuals prioritize their livelihoods over truth, especially if speaking the truth risks dissension among their ranks and the intolerable threat of being thrown out of their exclusive members only club. Afterall, as Sir John Glubb so studiously laid out for us: the aim of Intellectuals is the attaining of wealth and prestige, through academic qualifications not the furtherance of scientific knowledge per se, or an unshakeable commitment to integrity within their fields. What concern are those to someone who is fixated on cash, and desperate not to fall through the ever-widening cracks of the societal collapse, that plagues all late stage empires in their final phases of being. This dearth of critical thinking and utter unwillingness to reassess the foundations of their respective disciplines have left the physicists involved with astrophysics, and cosmology in a crisis of their own doing, which at the same time, they are unwilling to acknowledge - and correct. The laziness of thought and wholesale lack of application of mind from people who frame themselves as the best and brightest in society, as the doyens of reason and logical thought, is unnerving - though not surprising. For that is what an Intellectual is. No one who understands what an Intellectual is, would ever be surprised at their empty, yet brazen "no skin in the game" self-assurance. Here is the situation summarized by Robitaille:

It shouldn't have been hard to ferret out the wrong, and completely unfounded ideas:

The bad habit scientists have developed of framing reality in terms of easily manipulatable mathematics, instead of the exacting demands of experiment and real life observations has led to many problems, not least of which is a society built on lies and falsehoods. But as with all things in life, you can only kick the can down the road for so long. Eventually, all accounts come due! That is the where false science is right now, with its laughable metaphysical claims of how the universe came to be. There are three areas where this will be most felt. To be more precise, there is one area - cosmology; but cosmology has three main claims that are all crumbling to the ground: the Big Bang, the nature of the stars, and the existence of black holes. They are problematic claims because in all cases, they claim the production of continuous light without a proper mechanism. The Big Bang would've needed a perfect lattice to create the light of the Mighty CMB; gaseous stars need a lattice to create the continuous thermal spectrum of white light; and we don't even have to discuss the requirements of Hawking radiation, because long before we consider that - we realize that black holes are downstream consequences of believing in collapsible stars. Only gases are highly compressible. Condensed matter does is not. Hence if stars are not made from gases, there is no way they could collapse to form black holes. Hence, all three of their claims are wrong! Robitaille shows how all three are linked to the current foundations of astronomy, as based on Planck's law, which in turn is based on Kirchhoff's law,

What consequences do laws have? Is it really a big deal that Kirchhoff's Law is the most fundamental piece in current philosophies about reality? What could possibly go wrong from using a law "that has never been linked to a physical cause" as a foundation for physical reality and everything society believes in? The most interesting part of that dichotomy is that the vast, vast majority of scientists - men like Robert Jastrow and Brian Keating among them - claim to not believe in God, and to be looking instead for a materialistic explanation for the universe, instead of the natural one of fiat, that all the evidence points to. However, in trying to fulfill this materialistic goal, they put all their eggs in the metaphysical basket of "the only expression in physics, which has never been linked to a physical cause!" Where does that leave you?

It is a curious question to ask whether scientists know their theories are false and they just continue the ruse out of a need to find sustainable employment? Or, if perhaps they have genuinely been misled into believing and repeating these falsehoods. The good news is we won't have to wonder any longer. The answer is certainly a mixture, as it usually is in life, between a few bad actors who know they are misleading people, and a majority of scientists who have been led down the wrong path. Finding the truth in such situations is never accomplished by asking for it directly. Sometimes the deceptions are so entrenched that people don't know what they don't know, and they genuinely cannot gauge their own culpability.

No, the truth of the degree to which they are at fault will be known by their response to the proofs presented in this blog! For now, we concentrate on the fact that Planck's equation is true in the limited setting of a true and perfect blackbody - such as as in the case of the Mighty CMB. What is not true is Kirchhoff's assertion that the equation is always valid, regardless of the type of entity to which it is applied. It only works on blackbodies. Which means it is only applicable to one entity in the whole universe! In Robitaille's next quote, we see that Planck knew that he had to use oscillators, that is, something with a vibrational lattice, to base his formula on, but when it came time for application, he reverted to Kirchhoff and his lattice free views. For, Kirchhoff had said blackbody radiation could be created regardless of the nature of the walls, as long as they were at thermal equilibrium,

Now, you know how Plank's derivation of the blackbody equation could be right, but its claimed application to the universality of blackbody radiation, not. It is because he included the need for "oscillators" in the derivation of his equation, but not in its application. Do you think it is coincidence that much of astronomy and all of cosmology are based on ideas that are not linked to "physical reality," while the definition of cosmology is: "a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe?" Or, do you think it is by design? We remember the excellent definition of "metaphysics" that we got from Wordnik: "A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment." Perhaps when cosmologists come up with all these non-physical ideas, ideas that - like perpetual motion machines - can never be realized in the real world, they are not deviating from their goals. Perhaps such science-fiction has always been the point. After all, according to the dictionary definition cosmologists are not physicists, but metaphysicists!

"LAWS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: The Implications of Kirchhoff's Error

It is genuinely surprising to see someone who has the courage of his convictions. I applaud Robitaille for his diligence:

Kirchhoff is in a double bind. When he formulated his false law, there was ample evidence that blackbody radiation was "special," not "normal" yet, he decided to sidestep those truths and plow ahead with his own wishes. That's one side of the matter - the overlooked presence of positive experimental proofs of how blackbody radiation works. Now, in our times, there is the other side of the coin - abundant negative evidence that proves what blackbodies are not! The mere existence of standing electromagnetic waves is proof that highly reflective and thus non-blackbody materials exist. This is not controversial. Whole industries, such as cellular communications are built around this technical fact. This provides an abundance of evidence that the mechanism that creates blackbody radiation is not an "opaque cavity," but a lattice as found in condensed matter - either in solid or liquid form. Robitaille uses the closest approximations of blackbody radiation we have, graphite and soot, as examples of what such a vibrational lattice might look like. And then he ties the need for such a lattice to the obvious lack of it in the Big Bang narrative - and outlines the inescapable consequences!

The problems of the Big Bang are not just that it cannot solve the horizon problem, the Flatness problem, and the monopole problem; its biggest problem is that it is the wrong paradigm altogether! It is a metaphysical speculation masquerading as a physical model of the history of the universe. The two paradigms cannot be reconciled. It's like saying who would win the presidency of the United States between Joe Biden and Donald Trump if one of them was Wolverine? Wolverine doesn't exist. But what if? There is no "what if." Wolverine doesn't exist. But what is the damage? Perhaps it was just a fanciful dream and its dissolution will just mean scientists have to come with a new theory or model. That's wishful thinking! In the collapsing Jenga tower, the Big Bang Theory is just above Planck's false claims to universality, and Planck's Law just above Kirchhoff’s Law. It is foundational to the Western worldview. Everything in the Western world is based on it being true. Everyone who believes in evolution, does so predicated on the Big Bang being true. Evolution is taught in schools as official proven science based on the Big Bang narrative being true. University curriculum from anthropology to zoology are based on the Big Bang being true. How history is framed and taught is based on the Big Bang being true. Genetics and human ancestry is based on the Big Bang being true. The West's secular bent and strong aversion to the Bible is based on the Kirchhoff's Law being true. Even for the religiously inclined, current Western religious beliefs on the history of mankind are based on the Big Bang being true. When priests say God used evolution to create the diversity of life on earth, that is based on the Big Bang being true, because without Cosmic evolution, there is no evolutionary biology! The two are nested speculations. I would dare you to identify one thing in Western culture that is not based on the Big Bang being true. I hope your life qualifies.

Robitaille connects the dots between the realization for the need of a vibrational lattice structure in explaining the Mighty CMB; the Sun and stars; and black holes to the demise of the Big Bang and all that depends on it scientifically:

Robitaille is very respectful and limits his consequences to just the scientific fields. But, of course, the consequences will reverberate throughout all human institutions and cultures, for cultural beliefs are based on the knowledge paradigms of the populace - as Bjorn Ekeberg points out:

The Ultimate Bob Rubin Trade: Nothing in Exchange for EVERYTHING

How many millions of dollars have been spent by governments over the years, building bigger accelerator after bigger accelerator? How many parents have sacrificed all through their lives to send their children to college in the vain hope that Credentialism would secure their future? How many wasted lives have fallen in wars fighting for ideals that are not tied to reality? How much have you invested into the Matrix, thinking you were securing you seat at the table? What if - all along - you were Jim Carrey in the Truman Show - but you couldn't get out? What if everything you've ever believed was a lie, but you loved the lie more than you love yourself? From where - the strength to break free? The problem is that the people everyone has agreed should be gatekeepers of societal wisdom are empty headed Intellectuals. They spend all day dreaming up speculations. I'm not making this up. I'm telling the truth. And they think it's their qualified, credentialed right to do so. Here's popular physicist Sean Carroll asserting just that:

In other words: as a credentialed Intellectual he and his ilk have the right to practice metaphysics all day - at your expense. In another classic moment he cavalierly shows his attitude more clearly

Current Intellectual thought is the one of the biggest ponzi schemes in history. Aside from jargon filled hot air, what have you gotten from it? Justification for your aversion to God? Intellectuals get paid for coming up with stories to make people feel good about themselves when they disobey God. That is the message behind: "We are all made from Stardust!" Are there consequences? Are there consequences to empty delusions? Ekeberg shows that something is lacking in the current environment:

Ekeberg is less forthright than Hossenfelder. So, it is to her that we again must turn. Her response to the dearth of knowledge and viable answers in the current scientific atmosphere was incidentally made in the same panel discussion. You will find it below:

I once saw a movie, and old black and white movie about a man who lived with his beautiful wife in a huge mansion. But the were dangerous monkeys on the grounds, so he put huge steel bars on every window to protect his wife - as she was scared of being attacked. And he was the gatekeeper. As the movie progressed we found out that his wife wasn't scared of the monkeys. The man was jealous of her beauty and had installed the bars not to keep the monkeys out, but to keep his wife in! Could it be that the gatekeepers you've outsourced your life to are not serving you, but you them? Could it be that their utility has run its course and you are left to fend for yourself - just at the world enters its most perilous period in history?

It's intriguing to contrast our current age with the bygone era of the pioneering fathers of Science. To think that in the times of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clausius, Faraday and others, whole disciplines of science came into being through one or two individuals - toiling independently on their own. Today whole nations collaborate on multi-billion dollar projects and have nothing to show for it. One among them commented that today, experiments take 25 - 30 years just to design and start to implement. You may wonder why so long? Why does current science have such a long turn around time? The answer might surprise you, as it comes from the world of video games. I found it in another of Naval Ravikant's insightful tweets. It relates to the change in video games over the years. Just as in the sciences, video games used to be short and give immediate results, but over time they have morphed into long storylines that can take weeks, or months of play to reach their conclusion. Ravikant gives the reason, as the incentive, facing game developers: how do you sell a package that has no value? Slowly, over a long time:

The central challenge facing Big Bang Theorists is to delay the moment until you realize it's all been a complete waste of time and tremendous resources! The wasting of resources, though significant, could be forgiven it it didn't produce any lasting ill effects. Unfortunately is is directly related to the quality and content of your life - yes, yours. Yes. YOU. You will not grasp my meaning just yet. We'll turn that corner soon enough. For now, let us close by reviewing what we have learned.

A Short Review

Let us recap what we know so far before putting it all together. There is only one material in the universe that is a perfect absorber - the Mighty CMB. As for reflectors, humans have not discovered a perfect reflector, but silver is one of the closest approximations to it:

The reasons for this are clear, we already know that an entity can hold energy in different systems that are decoupled from each other - they are not linked. Thus the conduction bands do not have access to the radiation field and vice versa. In such a situation whatever energy is confined to the conduction bands is not available to the mechanism for emitting radiation. Thus instead of emitting blackbody radiation, such a body will become a greybody, emitting radiation that mimics the curve of blackbody radiation at that temperature, but with less emission intensity at every frequency! The difference is the "greyness" - if you like. Greybodies are:

And ...

Why is it in "smaller amounts?" Because the energy distribution is not all in the vibrational lattice. Some of the energy is in the conductive bands, and is thus unavailable for converting into photons, hence it produces a spectrum of the same shape - distribution - "as a blackbody at the same temperature," but at lower amounts. If Kirchhoff was right, grey bodies would, and could not exist - for he claimed that: "in thermal equilibrium, the radiation contained within a cavity must always be black ... and independent of the nature of the walls." The evidence disagrees on every count. The radiation is in thermal equilibrium, and yet: it is not black, but grey; and the radiation is grey precisely because of the nature of its walls. In all real materials - with the exception of the Mighty CMB - the energy in the conduction bands of the walls corresponds to the difference in energy distribution between a black and grey body. Put another way if a black body has 100% spectral energy, a body which is 65% grey, for instance, would have 35% of its energy in the conduction bands of its walls; and 65% in its radiation field (or lattice). Conclusion:

THE EXISTENCE OF BOTH NEAR PERFECT REFLECTORS & GREYBODIES PROVES THAT KIRCHHOFF'S LAW IS FALSE

Putting it All Together!

But what does all of this have to do with the standard model of Cosmology also known as the Big Bang Theory? Like a tall Jenga sculpture that is having its bottom blocks taken out from underneath it, Astronomy and Astrophysics, have Kirchhoff's law as their foundational block! This means the falsification of Kirchhoff's law even in one experimentally proven way, nullifies any claims such theories have to validity. It only takes being falsified in one way for a theory to fall apart. Whereas, a theory has to be experimentally proven to be true in many different aspects to pass the test of reality. Regarding Kirchhoff's law, it has been proven to be against the laws of thermodynamics in multiple ways! Thus, we will now look at the concepts in the Big Bang Theory, that incorrectly apply the laws of thermodynamics, or ignore them completely. It was important, to first get to grips with the core principles through the instructive videos of PM Robitaille. But now that those principles are firmly in mind, we will more easily recognize them when we see them in different aspects of the Big Bang Theory. Our progress thus far, allows us to focus on the final part of Robitaille's quote: the part that deals with how Kirchhoff's unfounded anti-scientific law, occupies a fundamental position in cosmological theories of Astronomy.

Of course, we remember what the definition of "fundamental" is: "serving as a basis, supporting existence or determining essential structure or function - basic." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) Above, Robitaille lists some of the concepts Kirchhoff's law is used to justify. Since Kirchhoff’s Law is used as the theoretical foundation of these concepts, Robitaille's argument that it is "used to justify" these concepts agrees with the dictionary definition of the term "fundamental." Cosmologists and astrophysicists alike place Kirchhoff's law as a fundamental foundation of their theories. The fundamental nature of Kirchhoff's law and the fact that it has been thoroughly debunked, means all such cosmological concepts are without foundation - they are "unsupported" by the actual laws of Physics!

It may surprise you to learn that this view is not controversial. At the very beginning of our blog we read about how Niel deGrasse Tyson claimed that the God of the Bible was a god of the gaps. That as science progressed, this god and his explanations had to retreat ever further into the darkness - as scientific explanations for nature's phenomenon became known, the Bible's explanations were relegated to the dustbin. In reality, it is the exact opposite that is true - as we will now prove. For one, it is the scientists who are in constant retreat, and endlessly offering up patches to their internally inconsistent theories. Put another way their theories contradict not only each other but also themselves - they have internal self-contradictions. When such contradictions are brought to light, their purveyors must quickly offer a band-aid solution, or risk the complete failure of their theories. That of course means loss of income, which is the main goal of all Intellectuals, as we have so fully come to understand. This applies most pointedly to the Big Bang Theory itself. Soon after LeMaitre proposed it, and it became mainstream scientific thinking with the discovery of the Mighty CMB by Penzias and Wilson in the mid-60s, it quickly dawned on everyone that there was a big problem. No one could explain why the Mighty CMB was at the same temperature at either end of the universe! For that to happen it would mean a portion of the Mighty CMB that is at one end of the universe had had time to communicate - and establish thermal equilibrium - with the portion that was directly opposite it, on the other side of the universe! There was just not enough time for that back and forth. The temperatures should have been random, because the claim, is that they were produced by random quantum fluctuations. The problem was theory ending. Dianna Cowern of the very popular Physics Girl YouTube channel explains the dilemma, and the band-aid solution cosmologists came up with to temporarily hold everything - especially their careers - together:

The Intellectuals who would help resolve this impasse would gain instant fame and the accolades that come with it. Enter Alan Guth, one of three founding fathers of Inflationary Theory. In the 1980s, Guth proposed that opposite ends of the universe were at the same temperature because the universe went from the Big Bang to enormous proportions in an infinitesimally small amount of time - which, in essence preserved the initial unity of temperature, when they were close enough to communicate and set a common temperature.

What were those answers? And, are they satisfactory? In the video, she interviews Alan Guth, and he describes how his theory supposedly fixes the glaring problems of "conventional Big Bang Theory." If you don't recognize it from the wording, by calling the old Big Bang Theory "conventional" Guth is telling us that it didn't work and a fix was needed - his theory of Inflation. That is the science of the gaps - exactly what deGrasse Tyson accused the Biblical God of. If it's not broken, why fix it? The term "conventional" is always a euphemism for broken. Following are the relevant excerpts from their discussion and the lessons we can draw from it:

Dianna Cowern: The first problem introduced by the old Big Bang theory was called the Horizon Problem.

Alan Guth: Which is basically the problem of trying to understand how the universe got to be so uniform. Why does the universe look the same over there, as it does if you look that way?

DC: And, why was this a problem? Well, think of a cup of tea. If you pour milk into your tea, it'll take some time for the molecules to interact, and eventually come to about the same temperature. But, it won't happen instantly! The same is true on a larger scale. The fastest any two objects can interact, is as soon as any light has had time to travel between them. Well, according to conventional Big Bang theory: light hasn't had time to travel from one side of the observable universe, to the other! So, why should they be at the same temperature?

AG: So, inflation gets around that in really a very simple way. Is that if you trace back the universe that we're looking at now, to what it looked like before inflation, it was vastly smaller than anybody would have thought without the inflationary theory.

DC: Vastly smaller is not an exaggeration. Before inflation, everything in our observable universe fit in a volume a billion the size of a proton. Then the universe went through two expansions - inflation and after [inflation]. Both expanded space by a factor of 10 to the 28 [1028 = 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000], but the second expansion took 13.8 billion years. That first expansion, inflation, took 10 to the minus 38 seconds [.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds]. It's just an unfathomable rate! Back to you, Guth.

AG: And it was during the time before inflation, when the universe was incredibly tiny, that there was plenty of time for every piece of the universe to communicate with every other piece. And plenty of time for it to come to essentially a uniform density of energy, and uniform temperature.

DC: So, now we know the universe was super tiny. Well, the true genius of Guth's theory was not the incredibly tiny universe, but how it could've expanded so fast. Inflation provided the mechanism for expansion - repulsive gravity

AG: In Newton's theory of gravity, gravity was always attractive. There just was no other option, but it turned out that the more complicated theory of general relativity, actually allows for the possibility of a repulsive form of gravity.

DC: Yes! In very specific circumstances, gravity can provide a push, not a pull. It comes from something called the false vacuum, a state of matter in the early universe that allows expansion of space while the mass density stays constant. And that understanding for the mechanism of inflation brought a solution to the horizon problem.

Of course, you already know that, that solution is not only unscientific, but anti-science. I will again refer to Hossenfelder's observations about the topic. It should be noted that while the words belong to Hossenfelder, the truth is a general one that cannot be denied, unless evidence to the contrary is supplied.

You will note several glaring contradictions within Guth's unfounded theory. For one there is no consistency in his descriptions as to when, all the matter in the universe came into being. Was it all present at the beginning, thus causing the infinitely high temperatures; or did it come into existence during inflation. He gives opposing answers in different interviews. Sometimes, within the same interview, as was the case with his sit down with Robert Lawrence Kuhn that we covered earlier. Secondly his description of how Inflation maintains constant density while Space is expanding, does not fit any physically known laws of nature. You will understand the point more clearly when you compare several sections of the Physics Girl video presentation. In it, she illustrates Guth's ideas, and the deception becomes clear. There are four clips to watch: 1) The first shows Guth's description of why the universe was so hot and dense before the Big Bang. Such "very specific circumstances" being the required conditions to allow "exotic physics, like repulsive gravity, and false vacuums," to exist - which then give the answers to the "why and what of the Big Bang." In other words, without those initial conditions Inflation wouldn't have occurred. The illustration shows all the matter in the universe being squashed into a smaller and smaller volume, as the expansion of the universe is played in reverse. It is found at 1:40 -1:44. 2) The second illustration is found at 2:53 - 2:58. Here we see all matter existing in stationary locations, then appearing as Space expands. Immediately we see the problem visually.

The two descriptions do not match! They are describing two different versions of Guth's story, which are incompatible with each other. 3) The third is found from 4:08 - 4:11 and is a description of old claims of Big Bang cosmology, which have since been proven by observation, what Guth refers to as "the conventional Big Bang Theory." This illustration is the forward running of the illustration Guth runs in reverse, to explain how the universe got to have his very special starting conditions, which give rise to the exotic physics that allow for negative gravity. But, notice that now he places it in "conventional Big Bang Theory," and not within his band-aid solution that is supposed to fix the unanswered questions of conventional Big Bang theory. You cannot have it both ways. 4) He then pivots to his description of how the universe expanded during Inflation, and we see a totally different picture. It is found between 4:13 - 4:17. The problem with the illustration is borne out by the answer cosmologists and physicists always give to the question: "what is the universe expanding into?" They always say the universe is not expanding into anything. It is Space itself that is expanding and everything exists inside Space. This is physically true. The cosmos are everything that exists in the universe, that is, within Space. Here's the problem: in Guth's illustration of constant density, matter appears, fixed in its relative positions, as Space expands. Where was the matter before the Space boundary expanded past the location - X, Y, Z coordinates - it now inhabits, came into being? Matter, as we have just pointed out, cannot exist outside of Space. So, where was it before the dimensions of Space reached that far? It had to be somewhere, otherwise it cannot be factored into the original mass/density equations of the universe. Otherwise that is the Steady State Theory of Fred Hoyle which the Big Bang was supposed to be the opposite of.

Another problem is that the only way - in this illustration of Space expanding while its density remains constant - to represent that physically, is to not show material objects such as the galaxies moving apart. You will notice that the galaxies, represented by individual stars in his illustration stay fixed, and equally spaced apart, as Space expands. The problem is that is not what the observable evidence shows! Galactic redshifts show that as Space expanded, the galaxies were moving apart with it! This obviously has the knock on effect of creating more and more space between galaxies. It is that dynamic, that inspired the mistaken view that if you ran the development of the universe backward, all the galaxies would eventually crash into each other and be squashed together. (It was mistaken because it didn't take into account that the galaxies only came into existence as Space expanded.) Even internally, their concepts are not consistent. When they run the development of the universe backward, the galaxies come closer and closer until they crash into each other. When they press stop and run the same tape forward, the galaxies are stationary in expanding Space, and somehow appear in place as Space expands past their location. How is it, that when Big Bang Inflation theorists rewind and fast forward the same movie, the scenes don't match? Is there no critical thinking, when they come up with their models? And this is what you've based your life on?

Again, the only alternative to this mess, is to say matter appeared spontaneously at that location as Space grew. But, as we've pointed out, that is the definition of the competing Steady State Theory! The very same theory that was laughed out of the arena by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in the mid-1960s. Remember? The Steady State Theory is incorrect, but not for other reasons given by Big Bang Theorists. It gets the big picture right - matter appeared AS Space expanded in volume, maintaining Critical Density. It's only in the details that it goes horribly wrong. What is important here, is that Guth's Inflation theory is internally inconsistent! The "mechanism for expansion - repulsive gravity, that Inflation was supposed to have provided is not only anti-science, but it can't even tell a coherent story from beginning to end, without contradicting itself. It is riddled with logical impossibilities. A signature of all falsehoods. It is for this reason that Intellectual scientists - as opposed to the real thing - have become adept at switching between different versions of their theories - of which there are many - or different technical definitions of specific terms within the same story. As was the case with ITER scientists regarding the two definitions of fusion power. It is only by using this switching technique with a trusting lay audience that they can get away with their castles in the sky. What is the difference between this and the "faithful" at churches who listen to inconsistent lies from the pew? Secularists have long thought themselves to be informed and superior to the church going masses, but believing whatever you are told without any critical thought is common to both. Religious fundamentalists believe because they have no concept of what Biblical faith requires. And Secular atheists and agnostics similarly believe whatever academics tell them because they think its evidence of "following the science." In both cases, neither "believers" have the capacity for critical analysis because both are unfamiliar with the basics of what they claim to believe in. What if everything you believed, everything you thought to be important, everything you had worked for in your life, turned out to be nothing more than the top piece of wood, in a fast collapsing Jenga tower? Would you have any power to stop the consequences? What if you were Jim Carrey in the Truman Show - but you couldn't leave?

Below, we list this page's conclusions, as is now our established pattern:

THE MIGHTY CMB IS NOT RELIC BLACKBODY RADIATION. IT IS A CONDENSED MATTER BLACKBODY THAT CONTINUALLY PRODUCES A PERFECT BLACKBODY SPECTRUM - THE ONLY ONE IN THE UNIVERSE

THE EXISTENCE OF BOTH NEAR PERFECT REFLECTORS & GREYBODIES PROVES THAT KIRCHHOFF'S LAW IS FALSE