0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But the forces from left/right are not equal to the up down directions.
Please quote one place where I (or Kryptid) deny that the universe could be infinite. I'm simply denying that it must be, as you assert.
So, you still do not want to accept the idea that the Universe IS INFINITE.You prefer to set it under "Could be" infinite, (or: "We don't know"?).
I have proved that in order to get isotropic CMB radiation the universe MUST BE infinite.
If you are still denying that it "must be" infinite, then please prove it.
Please show why in a finite Universe we can still get isotropic CMB radiation - based on "shell theorem" (and only on shell theorem theory)" .
Your model on the other hand (besides being a violation of several principles) doesn't predict one. If the universe started out at one place (instead of everywhere) and spread out from there, it would be finite size after finite time (due to light speed limitation) and probably wouldn't have a CMB at all.
I'll let Kryptid do that. He brought it up. The hypersphere model is isotropic due to symmetry and the shell theorem isn't a part of the argument.
So, I'm waiting for Kryptid to let us know if there is a possibility to get isotropic radiation at a finite Universe (at any size and at any location in the Universe) under the "shell theorem" theory
They have to be equal because you already posited a spherical Universe. There is nothing to cause the radiation coming from above you or below you to have a different intensity than the radiation coming at you from the sides.If they weren't equal, then the microwave background would not look isotropic from any point in the Universe, not even in the middle. If the radiation coming from above you and below you was brighter than the radiation coming from your sides, this would be detectable anywhere. The fact that the radiation is observed to be isotropic means that this is not the case.
They have to be equal because you already posited a spherical Universe. There is nothing to cause the radiation coming from above you or below you to have a different intensity than the radiation coming at you from the sides.
If they weren't equal, then the microwave background would not look isotropic from any point in the Universe, not even in the middle. If the radiation coming from above you and below you was brighter than the radiation coming from your sides, this would be detectable anywhere. The fact that the radiation is observed to be isotropic means that this is not the case.
We see clearly that the net forces are based on distances
Therefore, it is clear that for one we might get F1 force while from the other line we can get F2.
So, how do we get the same CMB spectrum, same black body radiation and the same redshift from all directions as we get closer to one edge of the finite Universe?
Space expanding in all directions would cause an equal redshift at all locations in the Universe.
We see clearly that the local impact of the expansion is very minimal.Hence:1. If our distance to the near edge is R1 and the distance to the far edge is 1000R1, do you agree that the expansion impact of 1000R1 should be higher than R1 by 1000? If so, how could it be that we should get the same redshift in both directions?
2. If we are located only one Mpc from the edge, then the impact of the expansion is only 73Km/s. How that speed can set a redshift of 1100?
1. If our distance to the near edge is R1 and the distance to the far edge is 1000R1, do you agree that the expansion impact of 1000R1 should be higher than R1 by 1000? If so, how could it be that we should get the same redshift in both directions?
Quote1. If our distance to the near edge is R1 and the distance to the far edge is 1000R1, do you agree that the expansion impact of 1000R1 should be higher than R1 by 1000? If so, how could it be that we should get the same redshift in both directions?Since we can't see any visible boundary to the visible universe, the visible universe must have a radius of at least slightly less than R1, The visible universe represents the limits of what we can see, so anything happening more than a distance of R1 away from us simply would not be visible and therefore could not impact our observations.
The CMB is equidistant in all directions. It is a shell centered on us. Any CMB light that originated closer by has already passed by us. Any further out hasn't got here yet. Therefore the distance to the edge, in a model that has an edge at all, has zero effect on what is seen.
Sorry, you both don't answer my question.
You have stated that Space expanding in all directions would cause an equal redshift at all locations in the Universe:
I wonder how the Space expanding can set the same redsift to different distances and different velocities due to the impact of space expansion.
1. How could it be that we get exactly the same redshift value from the near edge of the universe which is R1 and from the furthest edge which is higher by 1000 times than R1 (without the impact of space expansion)?
2. If we add the impact of space expansion, that it is clear that the edge which is located 1000 times R1 from us will move even further away at higher velocities. That should even make it much more difficult to get the same redshift. So, how can you claim that the space expansion adjust them all to the same level?
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objectsList of the most distant astronomical objectsWe see that GN-z11 galaxy is located at a distance of 13.39 billion LY away and its redshift is only z = 11.09.So, why we get exactly Z = 1400 in the CMB, while for a galaxy that is located at the furthest location (13.39 billion LY) in our Universe we only get 11.9?4. If in one side our distance to the edge is only 13.39 billion LY =R1, what do you think should be the CMB redshift?Do you agree that the radiation amplitude of the furthest galaxy gets to our location at the minimal value (as 1/R^2).So, if we look directly in this direction we should get radiations from all the galaxies which are located in that line. those galaxies has lower redshift but higher radiation amplitude.Hence, we should see in the CMB (at the direction of GN-z11 galaxy) the sum of all the radiations from all the galaxies/objects that are located in this direction.As the furthest galaxy has a minimal radiation amplitude with a redshift of 11.9, while closer galaxies with much more radiation amplitude have a lower redshift (lower even than 1), do you agree that the average redshift should actually be much lower than 11.9. (could it be 2 or even less than 1?).If so, how could it be that we get a redshift of 1400 in the CMB in all directions? Why not 5 or 11.9?Do you agree that this redshift value of 1400 is a real enigma for any finite Universe?
Radiation that has traveled further would be more redshifted because it has been moving through an expanding space for a longer period of time.
We can't see past R1 so what is happening 1,000 times further away isn't visible to us. I say that we can't see past R1 because the edge of the total Universe must be somewhere outside of the observable universe (otherwise we could detect that edge). So R1 must be at least slightly beyond the edge of the observable universe, putting R1000 just that much further beyond our observation abilities.
The visible universe represents the limits of what we can see...We are about 46 billion light-years from the edge of the visible universe, so we are at least that far from any hypothetical absolute edge of the Universe as well.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objectsList of the most distant astronomical objectsWe see that GN-z11 galaxy is located at a distance of 13.39 billion LY away and its redshift is only z = 11.09.So, why we get exactly Z = 1400 in the CMB, while for a galaxy that is located at the furthest location (13.39 billion LY) in our Universe we only get 11.9?
Based on this answer it is clear to me that the radiation that has traveled further (from 1000 times R1) would be more redshifted than the radiation that traveled only one R1.
ased on this answer it is clear to me that the radiation that has traveled further (from 1000 times R1) would be more redshifted than the radiation that traveled only one R1.So, how could it be that we get the same radiation from a distance of R1 and 1000 times R1.
So, why in that direction we don't get higher redshift as the distance is longer by 1000 times?
How it could be that we get a redshift of 1400 if the edge is just slightly beyond the edge of the observable universe or if it 1000 times longer? Actually, if we get a redshift of 1400 from a far end galaxy, can we calculate/extract the estimated distance to this galaxy?If so, what is the distance that redshift of 1400 represents?
If we get the same redshift from all directions, why we can't assume that we are located just at the center of the Universe?
I am going to protest the top statement. The visible universe represents the current proper distance of the furthest material that could ever have had a causal effect on our current location. That by no means says we can see that far. The event horizon is only about a third that distance and anything beyond that cannot have an effect here ever, so that's the absolute limit of how far we can see if we're willing to wait forever.The light from the CMB is the furthest we can see, and it was emitted a scant ~1.3 million light years (proper distance) from the comoving location corresponding to here. The journey from there to us/here/now took it considerably further away than that, but no more than say a single digit of BLY away (proper distance again). That's the furthest we can see, which is well inside the Hubble sphere. If that light's journey took it to the edge of the universe, it would presumably be affected by that. We'd see it. We cannot see any further away than that. So R1 is not very far at all, no more than 20% of that 46 BLY radius of the 'visible universe'.
I don't think there are any galaxies in the observable universe with a redshift anywhere near that high, but you can estimate distances to galaxies based on redshift. I don't know what the equation involved is, though.
I don't know the equation offhand either, but if you look at the redshift figures for the list of 'furthest galaxies' linked, you notice that the whole list has not much distance variance, but the redshift factor number goes up dramatically for the entries at the top of the list. The number apparently come from the Lambda-CDM model, a plot (from wiki) appearing here:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Distance_compared_to_z.png/400px-Distance_compared_to_z.pngNotice that a galaxy at 13.4 GLY (that funny figure that corresponds to nothing physical) plots nicely at 11, and the CMB with z=1100 seems to be 46 GLY away by that measure.
The CMB is considerably further away than that, yet is not listed as it isn't a distinct galaxy or other object. And yet the CMB light was emitted only 1.3 million (not billion) light years away.
That's contradictory to what I've read about most distant objects since they've measured a quazar at something like 22 GLY away, meaning that object is now that far away, but within our event horizon back when the light reaching us now was first emitted. So I don't know exactly what is being measured on the vertical axis of that graph.Notice that the graph levels off at 46 GLY, with z approaching indefinite values as distance approaches the 'size of the visible universe'. If we could see through the CMB barrier, we'd observer redshifts far greater than 1100.The red line is the Hubble red shift, and that goes to infinite z at the Hubble radius.
Hence, the CMB with z=1100 seems to be 46 GLY away by that measure!So, why do you claim that the CMB was emitted only 1.3 million (not billion) light years away.
Quote from: HalcThe CMB is considerably further away than that, yet is not listed as it isn't a distinct galaxy or other object. And yet the CMB light was emitted only 1.3 million (not billion) light years away.I really don't understand that contradiction. You also see the contradiction, but I couldn't understand what do you really mean:
Actually, our scientists claim that the CMB is evidence for the BBT.
So, if the Big bang had been set 13.8 Billion years ago, how could it be that the CMB which is consider as a product of the BBT comes from a distance of 46GLY?
Actually, if we see today a radiation which had been emitted from a distance of 46GLY,
don't you think that it proves that our real universe should be much bigger than the estimated size of the observable Universe?
If so, how can we fit that size of the Universe in only 13.8 BY?
Do you think that it could set a contradiction in the BBT?
The 'distant' galaxies (or at least the material that would become them) were closer than 1.3 million LY away back at the same time that the CMB light we see now was emitted. Everything was closer back then. That's what expansion of space means.
I don't understand how a redshift which we are using for galaxies can't also be used for the CMB?