Mordred

no no no the surface of last scattering occurred at Z=1100 google it for Petes sake it is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium when electrons first started combining to form atoms. Redshift still occurs today even though our universe today is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium here is a basic entry article https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_lss.html to quote "Although the surface of last scattering has a temperature of 3000 K, the cosmic microwave background photons now have a temperature of about 3 K. This factor-of-1000 reduction in temperature is the result of the factor-of-1000 expansion between the time the photons were emitted and now. The photons have cooled and become redshifted as a result of the expansion of the Universe. For example, when the Universe is three times bigger than it is now, the CMB will have a temperature of about 1 K. "

Nothing in that paragraph makes an ounce of sense to any reader let alone any physicist. YOU don't use any standard of definitions so reads as utter garbage. By your own admission every common physics terminology in the above does not match common definitions yet you cannot provide your definition of the key words I have asked for such as branes as one example

There is no trick involved. The CMB opacity cleared up at 380.000 years of age from the BB. There is no opacity today interfering with photon path yet from the time of last scattering the wavelength continued to decrease. Your understanding is wrong plain and simple. Why don't you google the term Cosmological redshift if you don't believe me. here [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly) \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&1089.000&0.000373&0.000628&0.056714\\ \hline 0.001&970.069&969.069&0.000454&0.000759&0.063641\\ \hline 0.001&863.334&862.334&0.000551&0.000915&0.071406\\ \hline 0.001&768.343&767.343&0.000668&0.001102&0.080109\\ \hline 0.001&683.804&682.804&0.000810&0.001326&0.089864\\ \hline 0.002&608.566&607.566&0.000979&0.001594&0.100794\\ \hline 0.002&541.606&540.606&0.001183&0.001915&0.113040\\ \hline 0.002&482.014&481.014&0.001428&0.002298&0.126756\\ \hline 0.002&428.979&427.979&0.001722&0.002756&0.142116\\ \hline 0.003&381.779&380.779&0.002074&0.003303&0.159313\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&338.773&0.002496&0.003956&0.178562\\ \hline 0.003&302.388&301.388&0.003001&0.004736&0.200103\\ \hline 0.004&269.117&268.117&0.003606&0.005666&0.224202\\ \hline 0.004&239.507&238.507&0.004329&0.006776&0.251154\\ \hline 0.005&213.154&212.154&0.005194&0.008100&0.281289\\ \hline 0.005&189.701&188.701&0.006228&0.009680&0.314971\\ \hline 0.006&168.829&167.829&0.007463&0.011563&0.352603\\ \hline 0.007&150.253&149.253&0.008937&0.013808&0.394635\\ \hline 0.007&133.721&132.721&0.010698&0.016484&0.441559\\ \hline 0.008&119.008&118.008&0.012800&0.019675&0.493924\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&104.913&0.015309&0.023478&0.552333\\ \hline 0.011&94.260&93.260&0.018302&0.028010&0.617449\\ \hline 0.012&83.889&82.889&0.021873&0.033412&0.690005\\ \hline 0.013&74.659&73.659&0.026132&0.039848&0.770801\\ \hline 0.015&66.444&65.444&0.031211&0.047518&0.860719\\ \hline 0.017&59.133&58.133&0.037266&0.056657&0.960718\\ \hline 0.019&52.627&51.627&0.044487&0.067545&1.071848\\ \hline 0.021&46.837&45.837&0.053094&0.080518&1.195249\\ \hline 0.024&41.683&40.683&0.063355&0.095974&1.332155\\ \hline 0.027&37.097&36.097&0.075584&0.114387&1.483902\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&32.015&0.090158&0.136321&1.651928\\ \hline 0.034&29.383&28.383&0.107528&0.162452&1.837767\\ \hline 0.038&26.150&25.150&0.128224&0.193578&2.043059\\ \hline 0.043&23.272&22.272&0.152887&0.230655&2.269531\\ \hline 0.048&20.712&19.712&0.182274&0.274818&2.519001\\ \hline 0.054&18.433&17.433&0.217283&0.327417&2.793361\\ \hline 0.061&16.405&15.405&0.258995&0.390062&3.094542\\ \hline 0.068&14.600&13.600&0.308686&0.464664&3.424511\\ \hline 0.077&12.993&11.993&0.367873&0.553490&3.785220\\ \hline 0.086&11.564&10.564&0.438378&0.659241&4.178540\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&9.291&0.522342&0.785104&4.606237\\ \hline 0.109&9.159&8.159&0.622337&0.934864&5.069835\\ \hline 0.123&8.151&7.151&0.741396&1.112970&5.570564\\ \hline 0.138&7.254&6.254&0.883106&1.324642&6.109216\\ \hline 0.155&6.456&5.456&1.051751&1.575989&6.685941\\ \hline 0.174&5.746&4.746&1.252327&1.874042&7.300157\\ \hline 0.196&5.114&4.114&1.490772&2.226851&7.950210\\ \hline 0.220&4.551&3.551&1.773969&2.643393&8.633245\\ \hline 0.247&4.050&3.050&2.109877&3.133394&9.344906\\ \hline 0.277&3.605&2.605&2.507705&3.706949&10.078977\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.208&2.977691&4.373615&10.827382\\ \hline 0.350&2.855&1.855&3.531250&5.141190&11.579797\\ \hline 0.394&2.541&1.541&4.180384&6.013592&12.323993\\ \hline 0.442&2.261&1.261&4.937174&6.988248&13.046138\\ \hline 0.497&2.013&1.013&5.813076&8.053192&13.731340\\ \hline 0.558&1.791&0.791&6.817286&9.184553&14.365254\\ \hline 0.627&1.594&0.594&7.955449&10.346218&14.935503\\ \hline 0.705&1.419&0.419&9.228712&11.492781&15.432947\\ \hline 0.792&1.263&0.263&10.632280&12.576261&15.853609\\ \hline 0.890&1.124&0.124&12.156498&13.554725&16.198190\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&-0.000&13.787206&14.399932&16.472274\\ \hline 1.122&0.891&-0.109&15.486308&15.092847&16.682257\\ \hline 1.259&0.794&-0.206&17.257193&15.648602&16.841624\\ \hline 1.413&0.708&-0.292&19.084811&16.081339&16.960166\\ \hline 1.585&0.631&-0.369&20.956083&16.410335&17.046787\\ \hline 1.778&0.562&-0.438&22.860235&16.655836&17.109031\\ \hline 1.995&0.501&-0.499&24.788750&16.836447&17.152975\\ \hline 2.239&0.447&-0.553&26.735095&16.967918&17.183327\\ \hline 2.512&0.398&-0.602&28.694196&17.063037&17.203810\\ \hline 2.818&0.355&-0.645&30.662778&17.131233&17.216703\\ \hline 3.162&0.316&-0.684&32.638034&17.180008&17.224075\\ \hline 3.548&0.282&-0.718&34.618055&17.214789&17.227279\\ \hline 3.981&0.251&-0.749&36.601471&17.239540&17.239540\\ \hline 4.467&0.224&-0.776&38.587301&17.257125&17.257125\\ \hline 5.012&0.200&-0.800&40.574846&17.269607&17.269607\\ \hline 5.623&0.178&-0.822&42.563607&17.278458&17.278458\\ \hline 6.310&0.158&-0.842&44.553231&17.284732&17.284732\\ \hline 7.079&0.141&-0.859&46.543466&17.289176&17.289176\\ \hline 7.943&0.126&-0.874&48.534134&17.292324&17.292324\\ \hline 8.913&0.112&-0.888&50.525109&17.294553&17.294553\\ \hline 10.000&0.100&-0.900&52.516301&17.296130&17.296130\\ \hline 11.220&0.089&-0.911&54.507647&17.297246&17.297246\\ \hline 12.589&0.079&-0.921&56.499102&17.298036&17.298036\\ \hline 14.125&0.071&-0.929&58.490634&17.298594&17.298594\\ \hline 15.849&0.063&-0.937&60.482221&17.298988&17.298988\\ \hline 17.783&0.056&-0.944&62.473846&17.299266&17.299266\\ \hline 19.953&0.050&-0.950&64.465499&17.299463&17.299463\\ \hline 22.387&0.045&-0.955&66.457171&17.299601&17.299601\\ \hline 25.119&0.040&-0.960&68.448857&17.299697&17.299697\\ \hline 28.184&0.035&-0.965&70.440552&17.299765&17.299765\\ \hline 31.623&0.032&-0.968&72.432255&17.299812&17.299812\\ \hline 35.481&0.028&-0.972&74.423962&17.299845&17.299845\\ \hline 39.811&0.025&-0.975&76.415673&17.299867&17.299867\\ \hline 44.668&0.022&-0.978&78.407386&17.299882&17.299882\\ \hline 50.119&0.020&-0.980&80.399101&17.299891&17.299891\\ \hline 56.234&0.018&-0.982&82.390817&17.299897&17.299897\\ \hline 63.096&0.016&-0.984&84.382534&17.299901&17.299901\\ \hline 70.795&0.014&-0.986&86.374252&17.299902&17.299902\\ \hline 79.433&0.013&-0.987&88.365970&17.299902&17.299902\\ \hline 89.125&0.011&-0.989&90.357688&17.299902&17.299902\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&-0.990&92.349407&17.299900&17.299900\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] Here is the redshift to Hubble radius evolution since CMB last scattering at Z=1100 approximately to today and into the future the row where S=1 is today.

I am but quite frankly I need to figure out just how little physics you truly understand in order to guide you in the right direction and no that last answer is incorrect. The answer you gave is a mean free path limit of photons, the wavelength decrease I a result of the universe expansion and is detailed by the cosmological redshift equation. [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_O}[/latex] http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Cosmological+Redshift Here is the problem if you don't know the proper meaning behind common terminology any answer I give you to any of your questions becomes meaningless. We simply have no common language to start with.

So once again you have a different interpretation than what is commonly understood by quantum erasure? Tell me does anything in your OP match any definition used by standard physics? I would really hate to see your definition of mass lol

Very good now why did the wavelength increase?

Lets start with the youtube video you posted on the CMB. Why do you think it surrounds us today causing static and has a current blackbody temperature of 2.73 Kelvin? How about the quantum erasure on probability wavefunction collapse. How many dimensions are needed to describe a wavefunction and what is your probability amplitude function predicting the probability density of said waveform? How does String theory treat waveforms as strings with the connection endpoints to branes on the open strings as opposed to the closed strings and what is the relation to the hyperplane relating to the geodesic equations for the string worldsheet?

But they don't you may believe they do but they don't For example your comparision of the Sun to the CMB is simply plain wrong. Your understanding of the process of why we have a blackbody temperature of the CMB which surrounds us currently is simply a thermodynamic application of a temperature decrease due to an increase in volume which leads to a decrease in overall global density. I

lol don't take any analogy too seriously

What is wrong with simply understanding how thermodynamics are applied under standard cosmology? Its a major aspect of cosmology, one key equation being the fluid equation of the FRW metric used in LCDM cosmology. Why reinvent such a successful application of the known thermodynamics here is the more common applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) You don't need to reinvent physics to suit your needs, you should focus instead on what is already developed. For example given the blackbody temperature of a region one can calculate how many photons/neutrinos etc contribute to that Blackbody temperature using the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics.

How does and object that has those dimensions not have a shape? I see upu editted so add what fabric of reality? what is this fabric composed of?

I didn't specify any particular vids, I am specifically applying a blanket statement to take any non peer reviewed resource with a hesitation. Any resource that is not peer reviewed is questionable.

Mathematically define a brane according to your understanding of it. As it is not in accordance with standard definitions

No I wasn't even referring to you I eas referring to other websites articles videos etc

So presenting evidence in support of mainstream textbook cosmology is an agenda? I asked you to show where I accused you of a religious agenda. Please do so or stop the false accusations

Tgen why pray tell did you comment on my editing my post? Why would you believe I am trying to devalue this thread in the first place? All I have done is present evidence supporting the cosmological principle Please show me where I personally accused you of a religious agenda

Do you enjoy spending your time finding reasons to judge others? So what if I editted my comment I do so all the time when I think of things to add. What is wrong with that?

Well think what you like, I never attack any poster that is never my methodology. Never gets anywhere lol. Nothing wrong with self study on the internet but it is difficult to find trustworthy resources. Its easy to be led astray. Happens to people all the time.

I haven't devalued any of your comments. I was making you aware of why this topic is debated by others despite the evidence. Its a warning to pay close attention when self studying via internet based resources. There is tons of links, papers vids etc with agendas to overthrow this theory. One has to learn to watch for the signals that indicate an agenda

What is childish about that statement ? Its a truthful statement. There are numerous topics that various people will not accept regardless of scientific evidence. Lol just look at evolution as one example. lol another is the BB itself or any theory that supports the BB

Its still good to know why certain topics of cosmology is so fiercely competed despite the body of evidence. This happens to be one of those topics where no amount of evidence will counter a persons faith. Anyways hopefully your learning that this particular topic has undergone intensive studies over the decades.

Well as an accreditted Cosmologist I could describe numerous other forms of evidence that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. However to do so typically gets too math intensive for the average poster. One such methodology involves comparisions of the integrated late time Sache Wolfe effect which will give insight to expansion rate variations. Expansion rates depends upon mass density distributions. This in turn also affects redshift datasets. An anistropic universe if the coamological principle waa incorrect would affect distance measurements. Science today checks the redshift and luminosity to distance relations via various forms of parallax including intergalactic parallax. The formulas of LCDM are formulas that uses the cosmological principle as its basis. Deviations from their predictions would become readily apparent at further distances. The fact that every major dataset involving top of the line detectors that require years to complete a single survey will trump any youtube video in a heartbeat. Here is a SDSS study using galaxy distributions https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7621&ved=2ahUKEwiS-4aOzrPaAhUIsVQKHf0kDUwQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0th8UzI8GIS5z2BOPA69cx I could keep going, for this study there is literally 100's of papers supportive of the cosmological principle. As you can see from this example not all of them require CMB datasets.

Would you like the results from dozens of different datasets all professionally done for comparision? Youtube vids means literally nothing in the scientific community. The only papers that are acceptable on the majority of any scientific forum or community is peer reviewed. Here is the thing when a model or theory becomes mainstream it usually requires decades of research, counter arguments, counter papers, supportive evidence etc. The cosmological principle itself did not happen overnight to become mainstream. Its been a hotly competed theory for decades. The evidence of 100's of studies won out in favor of the cosmological principle. Lol no forum topic on any forum will ever change a mainstream view. That approach will always be insufficient

It has nothing to do with new posters if anyone makes a claim that runs counter to the standard models the onus is on said claimant to provide supportive evidence. This includes myself or anyone else.

You will always find competitors to any standard model in physics. It doesn't matter in what model the competition is involved in. Even the most basic formulas are constantly tested and retested even f=ma hence MOND. Then too there is a ton of sermingly intelligent persons with credentials that are crackpots. A little hint if they resort to youtube videos in the first place suspect the latter case. A professional physicist doesn't require youtube videos nor pay a website to get their works published. This particular topic will always be contested as it runs counter to popular religious textbooks