[Bored chemist]

So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?

Only if you can do it without saying things that are clearly wrong.

[Bored chemist]

However, if we had the technology for to detect further away heat energy, we could technically detect CMBR  with redshift of above 1100.

We had the tech to detect longer wavelengths before we could detect the microwaves of which the cmbr is made.

We looked.
It isn't there.

Your idea is wrong.

It's not me who is blindly following an impossible idea.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?

If a better explanation for galactic recession is ever discovered, yes.

Please let me use Newtonian also for high velocity.

Well, you can, but it'll be wrong.

Once you give me the permission, I would explain how the entire universe really works.

As long as it's not Theory D.

Thanks
Well as there is an evolvment in the BBT, there is also evolvment in my understanding about the best theory for our Universe.
I would like to base my theory on Bogie_smiles theory for infinite bangs:

Quote
What about  Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?

B_S suggests explosions of new material periodically occurring at random locations in existing space which would just form a black hole and not result in any matter at all. If anyone was actually capable of producing a new viable theory, they'd not be wasting their time posting it on a forum.

So, we start while the Universe is infinite in its size / age and explosions of new material periodically occurring at random locations in existing space which would just form a black hole.
In our universe there is no space expansion no dark matter and no dark energy.
What we see is what we have.
If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Do we agree on that starting point?

So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?

Only if you can do it without saying things that are clearly wrong.

As long as you monitor my message base on the BBT filtering, then you might consider that it is clearly wrong.
However, if you have the possibility to set out the BBT glass from your eyes and focus on the basic elements of my theory, you would find that it is correct.

[Bored chemist]

As long as you monitor my message base on the BBT filtering,

The BBT is not involved here.
Your idea predicts that there's lots of long wave radiation along with teh CMBR.
There is not.
So you are wrong.

The only one looking through a BBT filter is you.
You are assuming that everything wrong with your idea is to do with the BBT.
It isn't.
Your idea would have been known to be wrong without a BBT.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Your idea predicts that there's lots of long wave radiation along with the CMBR.
There is not.
So you are wrong.

How did you get to this long wave radiation idea?
I only claimed that if we could monitor the same microwave wave radiation from galaxies that are located further away, we could verify that their redshift is higher than 1100.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The only one looking through a BBT filter is you.
You are assuming that everything wrong with your idea is to do with the BBT.
It isn't.
Your idea would have been known to be wrong without a BBT.

Well, the BBT at its maximal ability - can only explain the creation of the observable universe.
However, I hope that by now we all should know that our real universe is quite bigger than that.
This by itself should convince you that there is a severe error in the BBT as it is.
I would like to offer you a solution for unlimited size universe without any need for space expansion.
You should be happy with that solution.

[Bored chemist]

How did you get to this long wave radiation idea?

From your post.

if we had the technology for to detect further away heat energy, we could technically detect CMBR  with redshift of above 1100.

We have the technology, and we looked.
But we don't see this figment of your imagination.
If the redshift was bigger the wavelengths would be longer.

Which part of your post did you not understand?

Do you now realise that the reason your post is wrong has nothing to do with BBT?
Do you realise that the one who is obsessed with the BBT is you- because you refuse to understand it?

[Bored chemist]

I would like to offer you a solution

Your "solution" gets things wrong so it is not a solution, it is a problem.
We have enough problems thanks.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We have the technology, and we looked.
But we don't see this figment of your imagination.
If the redshift was bigger the wavelengths would be longer.

I have found a very interesting article about the CMBR:
https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/how-do-we-know-that-the-cmb-is-from-a-hot-early-universe/
They discuss about extra-galactic background light (EGBL):
The extra-galactic background light
We have also, over the last few decades, determined the components of what is known as the extra-galactic background light, which just means the light coming from beyond our galaxy. When I say “light”, I don’t just mean visible light, but light from across the electromagnetic spectrum from gamma rays all the way down to radio waves. Here are the actual data of the extra-galactic background light (EGBL)"
Here is a cartoon (from Andrew Jaffe) which shows the various components of the EGBL.
https://thecuriousastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/img_9078.jpg
It is stated:
"on the plot is an indicator of the energy in the photons at that wavelength (or frequency). The energy of the photons from the CMB is greater than the energy of photons coming from all stars in all the galaxies in the Universe; even though each photon in the CMB carries very little energy (because they have such a long wavelength or low frequency)."
The following statement: "each photon in the CMB carries very little energy", proves that those CMB photons come from all the galaxies in the very deep space (outside the observable universe) which we can't see any more due to their ultra far away location.
So, due to their ultra far away location (outside the observable universe), their photon carries very little energy, However, as there are billions over billions galaxies there - in their total energy  "The energy of the photons from the CMB is greater than the energy of photons coming from all stars in all the galaxies in the Universe" (Observable universe)
Actually, our scientists claim that there is a problem with the assumption that the CMB comes from the early Universe:
"If the CMB comes from the early Universe, then its light has to travel through intervening material like galaxies, gas between galaxies and clusters of galaxies. You might be wondering why we don’t see any absorption lines in the CMB’s spectrum in the same way that we do in the light coming from the surfaces of stars."
They have found a solution for that:
"The answer is simple, the photons in the CMB do not have enough energy to excite any electrons in any hydrogen or helium atoms (which is what 99% of the Universe is), and so no absorption lines are produced."
Sorry,  how can they claim that "CMB do not have enough energy", while based on the BBT it was created when the Universe temp was  3,000K:
https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/what-is-the-redshift-of-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb/
"When the Universe had cooled to about 3,000K it was cool enough for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen."
I think that as "each photon in the CMB carries very little energy" proves that it comes from galaxies outside the observable universe as I have stated.

We have enough problems thanks.

Please, let me help you to overcome those problems by ignoring the BBT filtering.

[Kryptid]

Well, the BBT at its maximal ability - can only explain the creation of the observable universe.

No, it can explain the creation of the Universe as a whole.

If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Do we agree on that starting point?

No. As has been pointed out to you many times before, that violates special relativity.

[Origin]

If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Do we agree on that starting point?

No, that is not correct.

Recession velocity =
So for z=11, the recession velocity is 295,657,389 m/s.

You know the recession velocity isn't >c because we can see the galaxy!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.
Do we agree on that starting point?

No, that is not correct.

Recession velocity =
So for z=11, the recession velocity is 295,657,389 m/s.

You know the recession velocity isn't >c because we can see the galaxy!

Recession velocity and cosmological redshift is based on the idea of expansion of space:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity
Recessional velocity is the rate at which an extragalactic astronomical object recedes (becomes more distant) from an observer as a result of the expansion of the universe.[1] It can be measured by observing the wavelength shifts of spectral lines emitted by the object, known as the object's cosmological redshift.
The expansion of the universe is integrated part of the BBT.
I consider that redshift is all about linear velocity stamp that comes with the far end galaxy light
We can still see it due to relative velocity (with ref to the observer as explained by einstein)
Never the less, even without filtering this request of the BBT we can go on.
Simple questiin-
If all the galaxies that we observe are moving slower than the speed of light (at any redsfit 1, 10 or technically even infinity), then why do they come with so dramatic change in their integrated redshift?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Well, the BBT at its maximal ability - can only explain the creation of the observable universe.

No, it can explain the creation of the Universe as a whole.

Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe?
So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?
The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.
If you start the bang while the infinite universe is already there, then is it already full with matter?
If you change the starting conditions of the bbt, don't you agree that it is a significant change in the theory?
How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?
If I understand Halc correctly, a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.
So how can you create the observable universe from a bang while the universe size is already infinite?
How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?

[Bored chemist]

Sorry,  how can they claim that "CMB do not have enough energy", while based on the BBT it was created when the Universe temp was  3,000K:

Because science says so.
You should try learning it.

[Origin]

Recession velocity and cosmological redshift is based on the idea of expansion of space:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity
Recessional velocity is the rate at which an extragalactic astronomical object recedes (becomes more distant) from an observer as a result of the expansion of the universe.[1] It can be measured by observing the wavelength shifts of spectral lines emitted by the object, known as the object's cosmological redshift.
The expansion of the universe is integrated part of the BBT.
I consider that redshift is all about linear velocity stamp that comes with the far end galaxy light
We can still see it due to relative velocity (with ref to the observer as explained by einstein)
Never the less, even without filtering this request of the BBT we can go on.

That's nice, but did you understand that this statement, "If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c" is incorrect?

If all the galaxies that we observe are moving slower than the speed of light

Again, if we can observe the galaxy then obviously its recession velocity is less than c.

then why do they come with so dramatic change in their integrated redshift?

What do you mean by that?

[Halc]

A variety of possible recessional velocity vs. redshift functions including the simple linear relation v = cz

That simple formula is useful only at very low speeds. A police radar gun uses it to measure car speeds, but it falls apart once speeds get up to tens of thousands of km/sec.

Recession velocity and cosmological redshift is based on the idea of expansion of space
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity

That page is indeed based on expansion since it references concepts such as v_pec which is an absolute (frame independent) concept. Cosmic coordinates are absolute, unlike inertial coordinates.
Origin's formula for recession velocity is for special relativity, which is not based on expansion. The formula assumes velocity is directly away from the observer and it gets more complicated if there is a significant tangential component.

Again, if we can observe the galaxy then obviously its recession velocity is less than c.

Careful. Relative to an inertial frame, recession velocity is indeed less than c. Relative to Earth's inertial frame, the entire universe is under 15 BLY in radius. Post 61 explains the differences. Hubble's law holds in both kinds of coordinate systems, so recession velocity is still about 70 km/sec/mpc.Relative to say an expanding metric, recession velocity is unlimited, as is the size of the universe, and we can see objects receding at up to about 2.3c (or more if Webb finds a more distant one).
I think only under some ancient theory that put light speed relative to the velocity of the emitter would one not be able to see light from an object receding at faster than c. But all known theories that suggest such things have been falsified.

Dave is rejecting the expanding metric that aligns with an expanding universe as described by BBT. That leaves special relativity unless Dave also rejects the constant speed of light.

Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe? So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?

BBT is consistent with a universe without bounded size (cosmic coordinates). The view from the super distance place is the same as from here, per the cosmological principle, one of the premises of the BBT.

The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.

No. Please don't tell us what the BBT says. Maybe no matter, depending on how you define it. Normal matter didn't start to form until after inflation epoch.

How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?

Don't need to. It's already there as you say.

If I understand Halc correctly

I think you are incapable of that.

a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.

No. A bang at a location in otherwise empty space does that, and also violates conservation laws. Relativity forbids it. BBT happened everywhere, not at a location in space, so there's no black hole.

How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?

You seem to still be working on the assumption that this size is a number. It isn't. A size is something only applicable to a finite thing. Infinity isn't a number.
Look up discussion on Hilbert's hotel, which wonderfully illustrates how one can go about expanding infinite space.

[Kryptid]

Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe?

Yes.

So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?

Yes.

The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.

It doesn't say that. You can start off with infinite space at the very beginning.

If you start the bang while the infinite universe is already there, then is it already full with matter?

No, because it would be far too hot for matter to exist.

If you change the starting conditions of the bbt, don't you agree that it is a significant change in the theory?

Who said we were changing it?

How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?

The energy was already there too.

If I understand Halc correctly, a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.

You don't understand him correctly. The Big Bang was not an explosion.

So how can you create the observable universe from a bang while the universe size is already infinite?

It's not a problem because you misunderstood Halc.

How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?

Quite easily. Infinity is unbounded. You can expand space as much as you want because infinity is not some kind of number that represents a physical limit for the expansion of space.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe?

Yes.

So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?

 
Yes.

 

The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.

 
It doesn't say that. You can start off with infinite space at the very beginning.

 

If you start the bang while the infinite universe is already there, then is it already full with matter?

No, because it would be far too hot for matter to exist.

If you change the starting conditions of the bbt, don't you agree that it is a significant change in the theory?

Who said we were changing it?
 

How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?

The energy was already there too.

If I understand Halc correctly, a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.

You don't understand him correctly. The Big Bang was not an explosion.
 

So how can you create the observable universe from a bang while the universe size is already infinite?

It's not a problem because you misunderstood Halc.

How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?

Quite easily. Infinity is unbounded. You can expand space as much as you want because infinity is not some kind of number that represents a physical limit for the expansion of space.

Thanks  Kryptid

I really don't understand the added value of the bang in that infinite universe and how it works.

If I understand the classical BBT, there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.

Suddenly, 13.8 B years ago, out of the blue, there was a Big Bang.

That bang delivered almost infinite energy in infinite small space of the just born universe.

As the space expands and cools down, the energy had been transformed into protons and latter on to Hydrogen atoms without any sort of external help

No one can ask how that infinite energy had been delivered to the universe that was not there.

So far so good.

Now, let's move on to the universe with infinite space that was there long before the bang.

With yur permission, I would call this theory - The infinite BBT theory.

In this theory, the space in the universe was already infinite with energy but without any matter.

So, the questions are as follow:

1. What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?

No atoms, no particles no quarks nothing at all.

2. Why that energy can't be transformed to real matter without the bang?

Let's assume that there was some kind of energy in the infinite space and due to that energy the temp is fixed all over the universe - however, I assume that it must be a finite heat/temp (T).

So, as the BBT can only reuse the existing energy/heat in that infinite universe, and as the bang took place at the entire infinite universe at the same moment, then how this bang can increase the energy/heat of the universe by even one degree?

So, as the bang can't add any new energy/heat in that infinite universe, how the bang can set any sort of contribution in order to transform the existing energy to real matter?

3. I still don't understand how a bang that is using the current energy from the existing space can suddenly expand the space?

Please remember - as the infinite Universe is already there, you can't claim that it is feasible to bypass those laws at the moment of the bang. the existing infinite universe must fully obey to all science law - before, at the bang and after the bang.

Therefore, is there any possibility for any sort of energy to set a bang which could expand the space itself without breaking the science law?

Do we have any valid science law for that?

 
4. How a theory that can break any science law that we wish (due to the idea that there is no space in the universe) could be considered the same theory to the one that can't break even one tinny law of science as the space of this universe is already infinite?

Why do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?

[Kryptid]

If I understand the classical BBT, there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.

As far as I'm aware, the classical BBT says there is no such thing as "before the bang".

That bang delivered almost infinite energy in infinite small space of the just born universe.

Not so. There energy was already there. All the Big Bang did was spread that energy out more.

No one can ask how that infinite energy had been delivered to the universe that was not there.

It wasn't delivered to the Universe. It was already there.

In this theory, the space in the universe was already infinite with energy but without any matter.

That's consistent with the Big Bang theory.

1. What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?

No atoms, no particles no quarks nothing at all.

Likely just the particles of the unified force and maybe the Higgs field too (i.e. bosons).

2. Why that energy can't be transformed to real matter without the bang?

It would be too hot otherwise.

So, as the BBT can only reuse the existing energy/heat in that infinite universe, and as the bang took place at the entire infinite universe at the same moment, then how this bang can increase the energy/heat of the universe by even one degree?

It didn't. It decreased the temperature instead. As the Universe expands, it gets cooler.

3. I still don't understand how a bang that is using the current energy from the existing space can suddenly expand the space?

Space expansion is, to the best of our knowledge, caused by a form of energy inherent to space itself and is thus not dependent upon the energy contribution from subatomic particles or other matter in that same space.

Therefore, is there any possibility for any sort of energy to set a bang which could expand the space itself without breaking the science law?

What science law are you proposing that it is breaking?

4. How a theory that can break any science law that we wish

I don't think the Big Bang theory can do that.

(due to the idea that there is no space in the universe)

Who ever said that?

could be considered the same theory to the one that can't break even one tinny law of science as the space of this universe is already infinite?

I've been talking about the Big Bang theory this whole time. What other theory are you referencing?

Why do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?

What two different things are you talking about?

[Halc]

If I understand the classical BBT

Every time you say these words, it means you're spouting something that you know is wrong.

there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.

BBT is not a creation theory any more than evolution theory is an explanation of abiogenesis. It does not posit something from nothing. It only describes the evolution of the universe from the initial singularity.

That bang delivered almost infinite energy in infinite small space of the just born universe.

Not a small space. Just high density, but it specifies no size, which would be a number. Don't mistake the word 'singularity' for a thing with a size.

Now, let's move on to the universe with infinite space that was there long before the bang.

No. Time as we know it is not defined prior to the singularity any more than altitude above your house is defined lower than the center of Earth, and also as gravitational potential is not meaningful for values above (*) the potential of a zero-energy universe. ( * A white hole is arguably an exception to this, but it is a mathematical solution that doesn't seem to actually exist anywhere)
Spacetime itself is not defined at the singularity. These things emerged later, near say the Planck epoch. The universe has many temporal singularities. The big bang is just one of them.

What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?

The energy (sans 'matter') was arguably a function of the various fields, except even those took some time to separate out into the various distinct fields. A unified quantum field theory would give a better answer to the above question, and it is still a work in progress. Fields have been merged by different approaches, but never all of them into one unified field.

Why do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?

What two different things are you talking about?

Indeed, there was zero context to that question.