Butch

I can tell you are on the edge of grasping this, don't shy back, take the plunge.

Hmm... I am familiar with that... Not sure you grasp my concept yet, but I will refresh myself on that and see if it applies. Hmmm no you don't get it, please don't be offended by that statement, after all I have been digging this hole since 1983. The laws of thermodynamics apply in our space/time. When we consider the Big Bang we are looking at the very edge of space/time. We are trying to take a measure of the infinite relative to our little corner of existence.

And hopefully now you see why I needed my rules for infinity. Absolute zero or 1 million degrees on any scale still approaches 0 in an infinite universe. See me in 10 million years, unless you can find me another measuring stick.

Yes, however our instruments then would be in such tightly curved space time they would give us exactly the same measurement that we get at present.Do you now understand the paradox?

It would not remain the same only our measurement devices which are in curved space would deceive us. When we measure the cmb, we are measuring "everything" to do that properly we need a measuring stick that is outside of space/time. Unless of course we are intelligent enough to recognise the paradox and account for it.Alas, it will take another 10 million years to verify the paradox.

Pretty simple The curvature of space/time is inversely proportional to the expansion of the Big Bang.In the "beginning" space time was curved into itself.

Yes, odd but odd is exciting isn't it?I will start a new thread in speculations. Was reviewing the topic and thought I should comment on this, the cmb has not been the same all along, but the curvature of time/space would cause it to appear to remain the same when we try to measure it.

How far have we come in the area of detecting neutrinos?I know I am going to take a beating on this one... But I have an atomic model that does not require the existence of neutrons... If you would be interested, I will put together a graphic.

Never said my opinion was right, not as well informed as you, I bow to your evidence. That after all answers my inquiry. Thx! Cosmic neutrino background, that is an awesome thought, is that your idea?

There are very knowledgeable people that are doing some tremendous work dealing with much more than that single issue. They have constructed a pretty good baseline despite all the noise from a great many sources. And it is not my intention to do so in this topic... Millions of yrs. V decades... Just opinion.

This conversation should be taking place under my topic in speculation, here I am just inquiring about measurement of the cmb, I am not proposing my hypothesis.

It is a matter of precision,just a small change over time that was reliable would do. With current equipment... And the marvelous people interpreting those measurements, I am thinking decades. Does the mass of the early Big Bang curve space. (Note I did not refer to the early universe, the Big Bang could be a local event).

It won't be measured in my lifetime, but I think it would be a worthwhile experiment to monitor the baseline peak frequency for change over time. I am still left with the possibility that the Big Bang is a local event. Temperature as applies to radiation has a time component, thus we now measure the CMB in the microwave range instead of higher frequencies. Cooling is in the form of wavelength, we are not measuring kinetic energy. If you take a look at my simple little graph as a curvature of time rather than space(the relationship remains the same) you should be able to understand how our observations could be skewed. If time were compressed the apparent frequency would increase. I know you want a complex mathematical demonstration of this, however it just isn't that complex... f=oscillations/second If time is compressed in the history of the Big Bang as we perceive it, frequency would appear to be higher in the past. Even Einstein referred to time dilation, because that is what we perceive, although curved space is the same thing. Did the early state of the Big Bang curve space? I am curious however do you lean finite or infinite?

This is not a true explosion, just a reaction that is accelerated. An explosion occurs when the speed of the propogating reaction exceeds the speed of the propogating shock wave, the entire reaction occurs almost instantaneously.

Looking above the fold so to speak, OK.

If I look to the north and I spy a quasar receding at near c, and I look to the south and I see a quasar receding at near c... What is their velocity relative to each other?

While I am on the subject, the Hubble telescope has seen very normal looking galaxies at greater distances than some of the distant strange bodies that were thought to be evidence of the Big Bang, how is that possible? Or am I mistaken about the deep field shots?

Yep, I'm screwed... http://www.setileague.org/askdr/peakchg.htm No problem, I found it alright, I also found a link where my question has been asked.At least there is also the possibility of the local event, that evidence (if it exists) will probably be found with a big eye in the sky.

Thx, I'll take a look.

Pretty fine measurement, I doubt I will see it. Lol, just remember when you are old and gray, if it is zero... I told you so!

Ahh, OK my statement about relatively simple equipment. The sensitivity of the equipment is inversely proportional to the time needed to make the measurements I need, but the instruments 56 years ago were not very sensitive, but they have the advantage of 56 years. I am just wishing I could have the chance to see such measurements. The measurement I need is change in frequency, if it is reliably .0001 arc seconds I am wrong, if it is 0 I am right.

Tough job, but being pretty well done.

Efforts are being made as we speak, to produce more and more sensitive instrumentation to establish a better baseline for CMB. Small measurements matter.

What conjecture?

We observe the CMB in such a short period of time and it matches calculations which are somewhat tailored to fit it, it is the most reliable evidence we have... But the degree of certainty leaves something to be desired and isn't Hubble debatable in accuracy?Perhaps more closely matches what we observe rather than exactly.