David Levy

Why do you claim so? We know exactly the meaning of redshift. It is detectable. So it is fact. I agree that the implementation of that fact might be a theoretical idea. So, based on that redshift fact - we have an idea about the BBT theory. That is perfectly O.K. So, CMB redshift is evidence. The BBT is a theory. Same issue with black body. This is not theoretical. We know for sure what is the spectrum of a black body. Therefore, the CMB is considered as a black body. This is a pure evidence. Again - the implementation of this evidence - is theory.

No, the question is - if it will continue to be detectabale 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?

No - I totaly disagree. We know for sure that: "The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.[5] with a redshift of 1089." That all are pure evidences. How can anyone estimate what will happen in the future: "the cosmic microwave background will continue redshifting until it will no longer be detectable" How can we be so sure about it? We even don't know a simple question as - what came first in a galaxy - stars or black hole? This is a pure theory. They can add a theory. I'm not against it. But they have to state: "We assume that the cosmic microwave background will continue redshifting until it will no longer be detectable" I have one more question about the following statement: "the cosmic microwave background will continue redshifting until it will no longer be detectable" Let's assume that this is incorrect. Let's assume that the cosmic microwave background will continue redshifting forever. What can we learn from that?

The other problem is that they mix evidences with theories. If they give us info about the CMB it must includes only pure evidences about the CMB. Why it is stated: "the cosmic microwave background will continue redshifting until it will no longer be detectable" This is a theory by definition. It might be correct, but it also might be incorrect. Really? They speak about the temperature, not about the redshift. How could I know that this 1100 represents the redshift? Sorry - it is my fault. I'm so wilfully ignorant.

No, they don't say clearly that the CMB redshift is 1100. Why they give us all those kinds of information without clearly specify that the CMB redshift is 1100? How can we know it? I had no clue about it. So I still think that they must add immediately this vital info. Not hid it in between long explanation. So instead of: "The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.[5] " It should be: The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.[5] with a redshift of 1089. So simple!

Thanks Strange Yes, you are absolutely correct! The redshift value of the CMB is 1089 (about 1100). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Redshift_formulae "The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the Universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.8 billion years ago,[60] and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[61] This is the most important feature of the CMB. So, how could it be that it isn't published in all the CMB articles? For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background In that article from Wiki - not even one word about the redshift. In the last several years I have read few hundreds articles about the CMB - none of them have mentioned this vital info. Why? Is it a military secret? I'm in a deep shock about it. It's a big shame for the science community that they hide this supper important information from the public.

Thanks Strange So we all agree that the based on the redshift we can extract the relative scale factor. However, I had the impression that 1100 is the maximal scale factor. Hence, if I understand it correctly, any matter with this scale factor should be located today at the far end of the Universe (45 Million LY x 1100 = 49.5 Billion LY). At that distance we technically can't see that matter, or get the wavelength radiation for that specific matter & scale factor. Therefore, I have assumed that if we verify the redshift of any wavelength radiation and try to extract its relevant Scale factor by the following formula: "if at the present time we receive light from a distant object with aredshift of z, then the scale factor at the time the object originally emitted that light is " We should find that the scale factor should be lower than 1100 (as it can't be so far away from us). Therefore, I have mentioned some lower level of scale factors as 1000, 500, 100 or even 10 (Just as an example): Is it clear? Do you agree? With regards to the CMB: The CMB is based on all the wavelength radiation from all directions. Due to different redshift values of this radiation, they might have different scale factors. You have just confirmed it: So, why do you calim again that there is only one scale factor for all the wavelength radiations which are intergrated in the CMB?

Hello Mordred Thanks for your explanation and sympathy. I do appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. That is clear. However, this specific formula set a direct relationship between the redshift and scale factor. In this formula there is no relashenship between the the distance and redshift. We only discuss about that formula. No more, no less. Unfortunately, there are some issues with regards to the scale factor which are still not fully clear for me. Please focus only on the Scale factor - no volume, no proper distance formula. So, would you kindly advice if the following statements about the scale factors are correct or incorrect? 1. As it is stated: https://en.wikipedia...tor_(cosmology) "if at the present time we receive light from a distant object with aredshift of z, then the scale factor at the time the object originally emitted that light is " You Actually confirm that based on the redshift mesurments we can extract the scale factor. Strange also claims that: Pefect: So, you both agree that the redshift gives a direct indication of the relation between scale factor and wavelength radiation. Hence, a wavelength radiation with a specific redshift should give us a clear indication about its specific scale factor. Do you agree? 2. Actually, if we could isolate the redshift of a specific wavelength radiation, then we could potentially calculate its relative scale factor. Do you agree? 3. Never the less, after all this explanation, I still do not understand how could it be that in one hand it is stated that the scale factor is a direct outcome of the redshift of a specific wavelength radiation, while in the other hand Strange claims that all the wavelength radiation with diffrent redshift verifications has a same scale factor of 1100. Please elaborate

Thanks Sorry, but I still don't understand why a linear scaling should be applied to volume. Would you kindly direct me to the article which discuss about the wavelength of the radiation? The one which you have pointed doesn't give info about it. There is no prove/link between the linear scale factor and the CMB My point is as follow: The science claims that due to the expansion of 1100, the radius of the current observable universe is about 45 Billion light years. Let's freeze that current moment. Let's stop now the expansion (only theoretically -off course). Now, how long it might take for the radiation from the far end location (45 billion light years away) to get to Earth? Technically, it should take at least 45 billion years. Therefore, this is the min time frame that it might take for the radiation from the far end observable universe to approach us as a CMB. Hence, the radiation that we get today can't be the real reflection of the current 1100 expansions. As it is stated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_%28cosmology%29 "if at the present time we receive light from a distant object with aredshift of z, then the scale factor at the time the object originally emitted that light is " Hence, the current CMB is a reflection of different scale factors. For some, it might be 10 or 50 and for others it might be 100 or 500. It's correlated with the redshift of the light/radiation. Therefore, it is a severe error just to multiply the CMB by 1100 and assume that this was the real temp of the Universe 400,000 years after the B.B. We actually must distinguish between the radiations from different scale factors. Is it clear?

Thanks for the explanation. However, I really can't understand why the science is using the wavelength of the radiation instead of "gas temperature" as some sort of a density in a cube. The science claims that in large scale, the universe should be considered as homogeneous and isotropic. Hence, it is almost as homogeneous gas in a huge ball shape – the Universe. So, why we do not imply the same formula for thermal expansion, as we should imply at homogeneous gas cube example? Our Universe has three dimensions. Therefore, it is quite logical to consider the effect of the expansion in three dimensions. In any case, how can we prove that a single wavelength dimension in a three dimension universe is the correct factor? There is another issue with that wavelength radiation: We all know that the light/radiation of far end galaxies which we see today had been emitted long, long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe "The surface of last scattering is the collection of points in space at the exact distance that photons from the time of photon decoupling just reach us today. These are the photons we detect today as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)." So, by definition, what we get today as a photon/radiation from far end galaxies/mass, had been emitted at least few billions years ago. Technically it could even be emitted just after the B.B. Therefore, the current received wavelength radiation can't represents the real effect of the current expansion, as the source of this radiation is currently located farther away. Theoretically, if we could stop today the expansion process, we will continue to see its effect for the next few billions years. So, what we see today represents the expansion as it was a few billions years ago or even as it was soon after the Big bang. Therefore, the current scaling factor of 1100 is not relevant for the current CMB. Actually, we need to wait few more billions years in order to get the real wavelength radiation as a results from the current 1100 expansions. Do you agree?

Yes, you are fully correct. It should be 1,000 instead of one million No, I disagree. The expansion is based on the size of the Universe. It isn't linear Please see the following message from Swansont: Hence, the real calculated expansion is 1,000,000,000 - One billion. As I have already stated, it is high above the expected expansion factor of 1,100. Do you agree?

So, when the Universe temp was 3000K, its diameter was about 90 million light years. The diameter of our current observable universe is 90 billion light years. Therefore, in about 13 Billion years the diameter of the Universe had been increased by about one million (1,000,000). Never the less, the size (sphere volume) of the universe had been increased by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. This actually represents the real expansion of the universe. However, based on the following explanation about the CMB, the expansion should be only 1,100: " Therefore, the drop in the CMB temperature by a factor of 1100 (= 3000 K/2.73 K) indicates an expansion of the universe by a factor of 1100 from the moment of decoupling until now." Hence, how could it be that the calculated expansion of the universe is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, while the science claims that it is only 1,100?

Thanks I will read it. However, would you kindly advice the following: What was the size of the Universe when its temperature was 3000K (400,000 years after the B.B.)?

Thanks Mordred I do appreciate your patience & direct answers. With regards to the following: So, if I understand you correctly - You claim that technically, if we use my example, then we should see a heat transfer from Hot (Universe) to cold (outside the Universe) However, Based on CMB, there is no sign for that heat transaction. Therefore, the science estimates that there is no heat transfer outside the universe. Hence, Swansont claims that there is no "outside": Did I get it correctly? I also would like to ask the following question: Based on our best knowledge, what was the size of the Universe when its temperature was 3000K (400,000 years after the B.B.)?

Wow What do you mean by: "surrounded by the Unobserved portion which is the same as our observable portion." ? So do you mean that when our universe temp was 3000K, then this surrounded aria was also 3000K? As the temp of our universe had been reduced due to the expansion, does it mean that also the surrounded aria temp had been reduces to the same temp? Why? how could it be? Is it some sort of matter/anti-matter? It is possible that this "unobserved portion" is also expanding at the same rate as our universe? Could it be that we are located at the "unobserved portion" of the Universe?

O.K. "on a large enough scale, the atmosphere can be treated as a homogeneous fluid and those components are irrelevant." Let's agree that this diagram represents homogeneous Universe. I assume that the universe is surrounded by an empty space at a temp of 0K. However, what about the heat transfer from the universe to that empty space? In the following explanation about the CMB this heat transfer isn't part of the calculation. http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm "At some point about 400,000 years after the Bang, the universe had cooled to the point where the matter became neutral, at which point the universe's matter also became transparent to the radiation. (Completely ionized matter can absorb any wavelength radiation; neutral matter can only absorb the relatively few wavelengths that carry the exact energy that match energy differences between electron energy levels.) The temperature at which this transition from ionized to neutral (called the "moment of decoupling") occurred was roughly 3000 K." It indeed had the blackbody spectral shape predicted, but the peak in the microwave spectrum indicated a temperature of 2.726 K. Although this temperature is clearly insufficient to ionize hydrogen, the entire spectrum has been redshifted from that at the moment of decoupling (when the temperature was 3000 K) by the expansion of the universe. As space expands, the wavelengths of the CMB expand by the same factor. Wien's blackbody law says that the wavelength peak of the CMB spectrum is inversely proportional to the temperature of the CMB. Therefore, the drop in the CMB temperature by a factor of 1100 (= 3000 K/2.73 K) indicates an expansion of the universe by a factor of 1100 from the moment of decoupling until now." Hence, about 400,000 years after the B.B the Universe temp was 3000K. Today, due to the expansion factor of 1100, the temp had been reduced by the same factor to 2.73K. Not even one word about Heat transfer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer "Heat transfer always occurs from a region of high temperature to another region of lower temperature." "Heat transfer changes the internal energy of both systems involved according to the First Law of Thermodynamics" "Thermal equilibrium is reached when all involved bodies and the surroundings reach the same temperature." So, let me ask you the following question about heat transfer: -Assuming that the Universe is homogeneous and its temp is 3000K. -It is surrounded by an empty space at a temp of 0K. -There is no expansion. (Please ignore it completely) What is the expected temp of the universe (due to heat transfer only) after about 13 Billion years?

O.K So, you claim that the spatial distribution of the open star clusters is homogeneous. Spatial = of or relating to space, "the spatial distribution of population", Homogeneous = of the same kind, Uniform, remaining the same in all cases and at all times, ​In other words, the density of population/matter in an open star cluster is Uniform/homogeneous. However, if we place two homogeneous open star clusters with the same spatial distribution and the same size at an empty ball shape, could it be that the spatial distribution of the ball will also be considered as homogeneous? The answer is - as long as those two open stars cluster keep their shape, then the ball itself can't be homogeneous, as in some arias (at the open stars clusters) the spatial distribution will be different from the empty arias in that ball shape. In the same token - If we place 10,000 homogeneous open star clusters around a galaxy, does it mean that the galaxy is homogeneous? If that galaxy has a massive black hole at the center, how could it be that its spatial distribution is homogeneous? Even if we find two homogeneous galaxies and place them in a cluster, does it mean that the spatial distribution of the cluster is homogeneous? For example – Let's look at our cluster with about 54 galaxies (including the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies). Could it be that the spatial distribution of our cluster is homogeneous? Please look again at the following message from Mordred: Therefore, do you agree that all the clusters in the Universe are not homogeneous?

Would you kindly prove this statement? Unfortunately, I couldn't find any homogeneous cluster. Never the less, I have found the following explanation about open star clusters: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AstL...38..506G "Based on published data, we have compiled a catalogue of fundamental astrophysical parameters for 593 open clusters of the Galaxy. In particular, the catalogue provides the Galactic orbital elements for 500 clusters, the masses, central concentrations, and ellipticities for 424 clusters, the metallicities for 264 clusters, and the relative magnesium abundances for 56 clusters. We describe the sources of initial data and estimate the errors in the investigated parameters. The selection effects are discussed. The chemical and kinematical properties of the open clusters and field thin-disk stars are shown to differ. We provide evidence for the heterogeneity of the population of open star clusters." Hence, if an open star cluster is unhomogeneous by definition, how could it be that a giant cluster which includes diffrent types of glaxies at diffrent locations and many (millions?) of unhomogeneous open star clusters could be considered as homogeneous? would you kindly offer even one cluster in the Universe which is confirmed as homogeneous cluster?

Thanks We must distinguish between evidence and theory. The CMB is isotropic and near perfect blackbody. This is EVIDENCE by definition. We all should agree about it! However, the expansion is a theory. This theory should give an explanation for the measured CMB. Somehow, I still see a paradox as follow: You claim that in large scale the expansion is homogeneous and isotropic: However, in the same token you confirm that in small/local scale the cluster is inhomogeneous and anisotropic: So, if it was just inhomogeneous and anisotropic in our local cluster - then yes, we could claim clearly that this local cluster has no real effect on large scale. Hence, your example about the waves on a lake could be perfect. Never the less, the inhomogeneous and anisotropic is not just a unique condition in our local cluster. In reality – any cluster in the whole universe is inhomogeneous and anisotropic by definition. Therefore, at any direction that we look, we should see infinite (almost) inhomogeneous and anisotropic clusters. So, with regards to your example - It is not just a local wave of anisotropic which should be neglected in large scale. It is an aggregated wave that should be considered as the biggest wave - ever. Therefore, I think that we should use a tsunami wave as an example. With regards to our universe: It is clear that at any direction that we look, we see all the clusters in that direction. As all the clusters are inhomogeneous and anisotropic, how could it be that the total sum of those infinite (almost) inhomogeneous and anisotropic clusters is homogeneous and isotropic? Also, those clusters set musk on the expansion process at their locations. So, how could it be that the expansion could be isotropic under this condition?

Yes it is. Thanks However, do you agree that if the expansion is not uniform then the CMB can't be isotropic?

Yes, fully agree. However, the main idea was to show that the CMB level is directly based on the expansion process. Sorry, I'm not sure that I fully understand your answer. So, let me ask you the following: Do you agree that the CMB level is directly based on the expansion process? If yes, then: Do mean that the CMB is isotropic as the expansion is uniform? Or do you mean that even if the expansion is not uniform the CMB must be Isotropic?

Thanks So, the CMB level is directly effected by the expansion process. However, The this process is not uniform: There will be no expansion in clusters and where there are concentration of stars Therefore, how can we assume that the CMB is isotropic if it is based on a none uniform process? In other words: If theoretically, in one direction of the universe there are more clusters and more concentrated stars, then the expansion might not be equal to other direction with less clusters and less concentrated stars. Less expansion means - higher level of CMB. Higher expansion means - less level of CMB As a direct outcome - directions with more clusters and more concentrated stars might have in the future higher level of CMB comparing to directions with less clusters and less concentrated stars. Hence, how can we explain this paradox? If the CMB is isotropic then the expansion must be uniform. If the Expansion isn't uniform then the CMB can't be isotropic. Do you agree?

No answer? Does it mean that it is correct? So, let me ask again: Do you agree that few billion years ago, the CMB level was higher? Do you agree that in the future, the CMB level should be lower due to the expansion process? Hence, by every passing day - the value of the CMB is decreasing by tiny micro fraction of temp.

isotropic = (of an object or substance) having a physical property that has the same value when measured in different directions. However: http://planck.cf.ac.uk/science/cmb "The Cosmic Microwave Background (or "CMB" for short) is radiation from around 400,000 years after the start of the Universe. Ever since the Big Bang, the Universe has been cooling and expanding. By around 400,000 years through its life it was cool enough (though still around 3000 Celsius). The expansion of the Universe has stretched out the CMB radiation by around 1000 times, which makes it look much cooler. So instead of seeing the afterglow at 3000 degrees, we see it at just 3o above absolute zero, or 3 Kelvin (-270o C)." So, is it correct that as the universe continue with the expansion process, the CMB should be decreased proportionally? For example, when the size of the universe will be twice, the value of the CMB should be half. Based on the following explanation: Therefore, after another 13.8 billion years from now (- 400,000 years, as our starting point is 400,000 years after the B.B.) the value of the CMB should be: 2.7 / 2 = 1.35 K Is it correct?

Due to the expansion, the CMB had been decreased to the current level of 2.73K. http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm "Therefore, the drop in the CMB temperature by a factor of 1100 (= 3000 K/2.73 K) indicates an expansion of the universe by a factor of 1100 from the moment of decoupling until now". Hence, as the universe will increase its size do to the expansion, the CMB should decrease its level. However, no one gives us a confirmation that the expansion is uniform by 100%. Therefore, it is possible that in some direction the expansion of the universe is different from other direction. So it might be that the universe expansion isn't homogeneous If that is correct, then by definition we might get some minor changes in the CMB level based on direction. Hence, could it be that the famous Foregrounds map of the CMB is a direct reflection of none homogeneous expansion of the universe?