Mordred

glad to see.

grr they moved the site lol. Here http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications

See the Planck datasets. Its extremely accurate. You can download them from their website. We've been measuring the CMB into useful data via satellites for some time now

Well on older radios a portion of the static is from the CMB. The problem is garnishing useful data. This is where the better equipment, filtering techniques even understanding every possible temperature influence our local space has. Movement, gamma rays etc becomes critical.

Incredibly tough

We predicted the CMB via thermodynamics and particle physics via the BB nucleosynthesis. Not only that we predicted the correct metalicity of elements long before we located and identified the CMB. The calculations were not tailored to fit.

Yes they do thats why the needed equipment is so costly and sophisticated.

Have you ever tried measuring 2.7 Kelvin from the background temperature from our Sun? Even our own motion causes a significant redshift dipole anistropy at that finite a temperature.

could be but can also be finite. We haven't the evidence to discount either possibility.

One of the leading possibilities for dark matter is possibly sterile neutrinos. This derives from the Higg's metastability on the seesaw Mexican hat potential. here is some papers on it. We still need further research but the potential is there. DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 One advantage is that neutrinos have many of the same characteristics of DM in also being weakly interactive. The first two articles deal with possible detection following the predicted indirect influence from the last paper. The last paper discusses the possible identity. The problem isn't necessarily size for detection. The only known properties of DM is it couples to gravity and the weak force. It doesn't interact with the electromagnetic nor strong force. But then neither do neutrinos. Yes you are correct that dark matter drops out of thermal equilibrium at an early stage in our universes development. Evidence shows DM as a key ingrediant for the Early large scale structure formation. Earliest estimates I've seen are as low as 10-32 seconds after BB. Prior to that the temperature is considered too high. Even for neutrinos.

As I mentioned equations of state... here is another workup I did on another thread. Its an easier heuristic view than those articles but will help in understanding them What the above correlates to is particle degrees of freedom. One can calculate how much influence any particle with known properties influence the temperature... pressure... expansion relations. Provided one knows the correct correlations to the Einstein field equations

Which at the same time is completely irrelevant as the rate etc exists in order for us to be able to measure it. chicken and egg argument. How could we measure something that doesn't exist for us to assign a unit to that measurement.

I should note that there is an entire field of Quantum mechanics that describes expansion. That field is LQC. loop quantum gravity. So yes it is possible to show expansion using action under QM. see above LQC can also model the influence of dark matter and dark energy. Even if it can't identify the cause of the two we can model their influence upon expansion. A little side note it decades of research for both dark energy and dark matter to be accepted under LCDM. There was so many variations and counter arguments that one could fill a library on alternative ideas. PS I should also include quantum geometrodynamics on the list above. Some information on how expansion is modelled via its particle contributors might be order. Every particle SM model, the cosmological constant aka dark energy and dark matter. Is assigned an equation of state. Every particle has a temperature and pressure influence. These influences can be calculated using the particles quantum numbers such as spin, charge etc using the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics which employ the Boltzmann constant. The quantum numbers and interactions such as entropy density determine the amount of influence upon temperature and pressure. You often hear the term used "degrees of freedom" Which correlates the above. The equations of state are then applied to the fluid equations in both the EFE and FLRW metric. In a sense pressure performs the work for expansion but as there isn't a pressure gradient does not cause expansion. Expansion occurs when the particles kinetic energy overcomes the particles self gravity. One might argue there is no walls for pressure to occur but under adiabatic expansion walls are not a requirement. here is the EoS. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) You can find the above better described in these two articles. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

I suppose the next argument will be man invented the evidence. I haven't seen a logical argument yet. So we may as well include that illogical argument. I see we are still on the man invented time. Which isn't science but philosophy. How about this Physics needs to measure things. So show how you can measure rate of change without time? If you can show that as being possible you might actually have something.

your formula is still invalid as you have m^3=s^2. Start there.

So no science just your belief got it. Here I thought we were discussing physics not belief or philosophy

once again your describing a rate of change. Any change of any system has a rate of change. Which is equal to time. Your trying to seperate what time is defined as using descriptions that change in time perfectly describes. How long did it take for the car to get from a to b. To answer your question. How about a change in space itself such as in the case of the BB. Is that not a rate of change? You have in this case a change in volume. "What is the rate of that change in volume"? Answer me that question without using a rate of time.

Move through space = change in position which is a measurable rate of change which equals time. Don't you see the logic circle there? Your describing a change with a measurable rate. Yet saying this doesn't equal a measure of time.

Did you read the time before time article. Or are we just wasting time on pointless no model, no math declarations? Tell me have you found a way to get around the very definition of time? that being a rate of change? No just more baseless claims that the BB has no time. And yes Resident expert says you need more rigor in your presentation. Ie start with the basic definitions. At the very least make sure you understand the model your arguing against.

no you obviously didn't read the material presented by Dr Perlmuter. You definetely never looked at the equations he used.

try making sure the units on the LHS match the RHS of your equation. Volume=space 3d m^3... on the RHS you have sec^2. The LHS does not equal the right hand side. equation wrong. maybe you should be

Science is still based on correct mathematics. Which if you consider the lack of dimensional matching on your equation. Ie the dimensions of the LHS doesn't match the RHS. Your equation is automatically incorrect. Don't quote Perlmuter in regards to your equation. He most definetely doesn't use it. Nor does he share your claims. He at least knows the correct math

1/time^2 hold on stop tbe presses how completely useless. All these claims and not a single equation that shows how redshift works. You can"t even that equation to calculate proper distance. Let alone use it to derive well tested Lorentz equations under GR

So when are you going to show me YOUR MODEL complete with the required math? I have yet to see you 3 dimensional volume in any equation you have shown.

lets start here first define space. Then name the required number of coordinates to describe space.