David Levy

The BBT is the ultimate golden egg of the modern science. I will explain this statement. During our discussion about the CMB, it comes to me again and again that the BBT is the cause. Somehow, the modern science positions the cause – BBT, before the evidences as the ultimate solution. I have never seen similar case at any aria which I deal with. Based on that cause they have developed a full system to protect and support that golden egg. They have set this golden egg at a golden cage. No one is allowed to touch it. Sometimes - it is even forbidden to look at it. I'm not against that golden egg. I'm not against any sort of theory, but please - after 50 years, don't you think that we should give us a small change to look beyond that golden cage? Just a brief glimpse… What is the chance that this cause is incorrect? Is it 10%? Is it 1%? Even for a chance of 0.1% we are requested to look for better golden egg. Let me use the medical community as a comparison to the modern science community. 50 years ago, they have also developed at least one medical golden egg. But fortunately - they didn't place it in a golden cage, protecting it from any sort of vandalism. In the contrary, at each corner of the word, at any given time, Doctors and medical scientists try to find better and better solutions. Better and better golden eggs. They do not fight for their current golden eggs (maybe sometimes), but mostly, they try to find different ways and different approaches to invent the next generation of the medical golden egg. Somehow, the time had been freeze over the modern science community. Even after 50 years, it is an impossible mission for a real modern scientist even to consider an option to bypass that BBT golden egg. Actually, in every site of the word there are very skilled scantiest with one real mission -- shut down any attempt to insult that golden egg. They are very focused. Once you take the BBT from the table, they instantly loose all their knowledge. With regards to my question about Redshift, I have got the following answer from Strange. So, without the BBT "cause" there is no redshift. However, we know exactly the ,meaning of readshift. It was actually discovered long time before the BBT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift "This phenomenon was first observed in a 1938 experiment performed by Herbert E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, called the Ives–Stilwell experiment.[23]" So, how could it be that just after the BBT golden egg delivery, we suddenly can't think about redshift without keeping the BBT cause in the loop? Never the less, Strange, one of the best knowledgeable scientist in this site, (please forgive me all the others - you are all great) have tried to encourage me: So, technically, I don't have to worry. If I think that the BBT is incorrect, than let's give it some more time. If this golden egg is defective, then sooner or later the science community should find an older star - which should proof that the BBT is incorrect. Correct? No, No. NO. This is absolutely incorrect? Asking why? O.K. Let's look at the following article In order to extract the age, the scientists are using Metallicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity "Metallicity within stars and other astronomical objects is an approximate estimation of their chemical abundances that change over time by the mechanisms of stellar evolution,[4] and therefore provide an indication of their age.[5] In cosmological terms, the universe is chemically evolving" However, the whole idea of metalicity is based on BBT approach: According to the Big Bang Theory, the early universe first consisted of hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium, but no heavier elements. Through the process of stellar evolution stars first generate energy by synthesising metals from hydrogen and helium by nuclear reactions, then disperse most of their mass by stellar winds or explode as supernovae, dispersing the new metals into the universe.[6] It is believed that older generations of stars generally have lower metallicities than those of younger generations,[7] having been formed in the metal-poor early universe. Is it correct? Could it be that the early universe was different? Well, not according the BBT. The BBT is the cause – therefore it should set the whole system, including the clocks Could it be that there are better ways to find the real age? Well – not at our closed loop system. So, the BBT (cause) set the clock for the modern science – which is Metallicity The metalicity should now protect on the BBT (golden egg) from any sort of vandalism. What a great closed loop system. This is just one example – the whole system had been set around the BBT cause. Can we bypass it? No, Never, Ever! So, dear Friends –Thanks for your great support so far. Keep on. One day one of you might have the guts to set the difference. Good Luck.

Why it is so important to understand the cause of the redshift before understanding the real meaning of redshift? We actually know exactly the meaning of redshift http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion "The further away an object is the greater the amount of redshift." For example - If we have some sort of disease, does it mean that we should start by understanding the cause of it? No. First we go the doctor. We let him know all the illness evidences which we have. We open it one by one. Just after getting all the evidences about our disease, the doctor might find the main cause for it. However, in our Universe - it seems that it works differently. We have to start by the cause. So, sorry Alfa Universe - you won't get help today.

That is a severe mistake! In any real world problem, we are supposed to set all the evidences on the table. It doesn't matter if we like it or not. All the evidences must be clear and open. Just after understanding the meaning of each evidence, we can go ahead and try to look for a correct solution. No one can give us a confirmation that we will be able to find solution. We might even find that our current theory is the correct one. However, in our universe - we first set the solution, and then try to fix it to the evidences. About 50 years ago we had a brilliant idea of the BBT. It was great theory for its time. However, after 50 years, and after so many discoveries, it’s the time to open the meaning of those discoveries/evidences without covering it with BBT/Expansion sheet. In Alfa universe, they insist to understand the meaning of those evidences. Please – let's help them. Let's discover the real meaning of each and every evidence, without covering it by any kind of sheet.

If light travels 13 Bly in Alfa universe, than the distance is 13 Bly. We have already agreed on that. However, a galaxy that its light travels 13 Bly, had a redshift of 12. Therefore, can we agree that in that Alfa universe - a redshift of 12 represents a light travels of 13 B ly? In this case, a redshift of 12 represents a distance of 13 B ly. In the same toke - a redshift of 1100 should represent a distance of about 1,300 Billion Ly.

No, as I have stated, in that fantasy alfa universe they see the same redshift as we do. So, can we agree that in that in Alfa universe - a redshift of 12 represents a distance of 13 B ly? Can we also agree that a redshift of 1100 represents a distance of about 1,300 Billion Ly?

Thanks!!! So, in a different universe it is correct. Let's call it Alfa Universe. In that Alfa Universe they didn't heard about the BBT or expansion theories. But they see all the features that we get. In that Alfa universe, they do not ignore the speed of light - as light which travels 13 B ly, means a distance of 13 Bly. So, can we agree that in Alfa universe - a redshift of 12 represents a distance of 13 B ly? Can we also agree that a redshift of 1100 represents a distance of about 1,300 Billion Ly?

Thanks So you agree that the light of this galaxy had been emitted 13 billion years ago. In other ward - it took the light 13 Billion years to get mother Earth. If we ignore the expantion (just for one moment) - it is correct to assume that this light had been emitted from a distance of 13 Billion Ly?

It is stated: "Astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have uncovered seven primitive galaxies from a distant population that formed more than 13 billion years ago."| How do they know that those galaxies had been formed 13 Billion Ly ago? Could it be that they have verified that it took 13 Billion Ly for the light to get to Earth? If so, then this is the answer.

Thanks for answering. I do appreciate. Why are you so sure that: Those variations are due to other redshift interference. What is the chance that those variations are real? Would you kindly share with us what kind of variations did we discover?

Thanks It is stated clearly: http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion "The further away an object is the greater the amount of redshift." So, with all the difficulties to verify accurate distance based on redshift (which you have fully explained), - we should be able to get some sort of distance estimation. Even if it is not fully correct - we still should have some basic knowledge about the distance. So, I still do not understand why some claim that the following distance of 13 Bly is not correlated with the redshift: "Astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have uncovered seven primitive galaxies from a distant population that formed more than 13 billion years ago. In the process, their observations have put forward a candidate for the record for the most distant galaxy found to date (at redshift 11.9), and have shed new light on the earliest years of cosmic history" If the distance of 13 Bly had not been based on redshift, what kind of elements they have used in order to estimate this distance? Never the less, it shows clearly a linkage between redshift and distance. Thanks I'm really confused. It is stated that a redshift of 12 represents a distance of 13 Bly. So how could it be that a redshift of 1100 represents a distance of only 45 Billion ly? That message is very important! Does it mean that we see different values at the CMB redshift? If it is average, does it mean that some redshift are greater than 1100? Could it be that some are closer to 2200? Wow, that could be great news!

It takes about 8 min for the sun light to get the Earth. This time frame represents the distance between us. As I have already stated - the expansion is a theory. So, just for one moment, let's try to ignore that theory. Hence, if the light of an object had been emitted x ly ago, than by definition the distance to that object represents a distance of x ly. Off course, we can then claim that based on the expansion, this isn't the real distance when the light had been emitted. But as a straight forward answer - Then yes, a light which had been emitted x Billion ly represents the distance of x Billion light years

Thanks Mordred Fully agree Theories should be based on evidences and not vice versa. That is fully clear. So can you please explain when we should use a redshift to verify a distance, and why a galaxy redshift can't be used as an evidence for the distance from that galaxy.

It is stated clearly: "The greater the observed z value for a galaxy, the more distant it is in time and space, as observed from our position in the Milky Way". "the improved and extended dataset has allowed the scientists to shed unexpected new light on this object, showing that it either lies at an even greater distance than previously thought (at a redshift of 11.9, handing it back the distance record)" Therefore, there is full correlation between redshift and distance. Why do you ignore that?

With regards to my question: Is it correct that a redshit of 11.9 represents a distance of 13 B ly? Your answer was: Why? So based on what evidence the science had decided that those galaxies are located at a distance of 13 Bly?

. Please - don't use a theory (the expansion) as an argument against evidence (CMB redshift). My question is very simple - Is it correct that a redshit of 11.9 represents a distance of 13 B ly? If so, I still do not understand why a redshift of 1100 in the CMB can't represent a distance of 1,300 Bly?

Sorry, that is the main fault of the modern science! They actually band the evidences in order to meet their speculation! The expansion and the big bang are theories by definition. I'm not against any theory. I'm not against the Big bang or the expansion. But those theories must be correlated with the CMB evidences. The CMB redshift is evidence. Based on redshift we know for sure that there are galaxies at a distance of 13 Bly. As you have stated: "something that emitted light X years ago is X light years away. " Therefore, based on the same knowledge that we have on redshift - the CMB redshift represents a distance of 1,300 Bly. If it doesn't meet the current theories - then its the time to look for different ideas.

With regards to the redshift: In cosmology, it's actually the size of the universe when that light was emitted. Hence, distance. For example: In the following article it is stated that a redshift of 11.9 means a distance of 13 billion LY. Hubble census finds galaxies at redshifts 9 to 12 https://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1219/ "Astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have uncovered seven primitive galaxies from a distant population that formed more than 13 billion years ago. In the process, their observations have put forward a candidate for the record for the most distant galaxy found to date (at redshift 11.9), and have shed new light on the earliest years of cosmic history." So, a redshift of 11.9 represents a distance of 13 Billion LY. This is evidence. In the same token, a redshift of 1100 should represents a distance of 1,300 Billion LY. This is also EVIDENCE. So, we can easily claim that the CMB represents a radiation which had been emitted from a distance of 1,300 Billion LY. Why not?

Theory = a supposition, an uncertain belief or a system of ideas intended to explain something. Evidence = the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. The BBT is a theory. The Expantion is a theory.Those theories are uncertain belief. If those ideas were evidences, then they had to call it the BB evidence or Expantion evidence. Please see the following:

This is a severe mistake! We must clearly distinguish between evidences and theories Yes, I fully agree. But, we always need to confirm our theories. We shouldn't ignore any new evidence which might contradicts our current theories. We always need to open our mind for any idea which could be more acurate than the current approch.

Sorry, I disagree. The CMB is pure evidence. All the others theories - are just theories. We must distinguish between theory and evidence. Somehow - the science mix it up. That is a theory. You claim - No, because it doesn't meet the current theory. However, it doesn't contradict any real evidence which we might have. If you wish, please highlight just one real evidence which contradicts that issue. In any case, please answer the following: Is it correct that the redshift of the CMB is about 1100? Is it correct that this redshift represents a distance of 45 Billion LY?

Why are you so sure about it? Why do you claim that there are no galaxies at a distance which is 45 Bly or over? How do we know that? So, do you agree that the redshift of the CMB is about 1100? Do you agree that this redshift represents a distance of 45 Billion LY? Do you agree that if it comes from that distance, then potentially there might be some galaxies/mass at that distance?

That is correct. But, it isn't visible light. I assume that the furthest distance of galaxy that we can see is no more than 13 or 15 Billion light years. So the wavelength radiation is very special. We can still detect its energy after crossing a distance of 45 Billion LY. Do you agree?

Let's assume that we all have just landed at Mother Earth. We don't know anything about the Universe and how it looks like. We don't know what is a galaxy or cluster. We also don't know anything about the BBT, Expansion and all the other relevant theories. So, they put us in a closed room and give us the following information about the CMB: They also explain that the CMB is based on wavelength radiation which comes evenly from all the directions. This wavelength radiation is linear. It also has a very unique feature - it can cross very long distance (much more than light). They specify that the CMB redshift is 1089, and they also give us full explanation about the meaning of the redshift. They tell us that this redshift represents a wavelength radiation from a distance of 45 Billion LY. So, the question is: Please draw the shape of the universe based on those features of the CMB. I assume that for some of you it might be quite difficult to participate in that kind of exercise. But please, try. It is only an exercise. The Sun will not fall over our head...

Thanks That is clear. You can leave this tread open as it is. I have some ideas about the CMB. Therefore I will open a new tread at speculation

O.K. I'm not going to argue about it, especially as I'm not so cleaver as you are. No, the question is - Lets assume that it will continue to be detectable forever, and at the same features as it is today. "The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.[5] with a redshift of 1089." What is the impact of that?