[Dave Lev (OP)]

Meanwhile, why don't you educate yourself on what the current science is? Do the homework that Bored chemist suggests?
This way, you can argue against science, instead of straw men.

Perfect answer
You improve yourself!
Keep on.

[Bored chemist]

On the Other hand as you claim that the Universe could be "finite but unbounded" or "have no edge" you actually contradict the BBT.

No, finite but unbounded fits the BBT just fine.
You problem seems to be composed of three parts
(1) You do not understand the BBT.
(2) You do not know what "finite but unbounded" means and
(3) you refuse to learn.

[Bored chemist]

You improve yourself!

From the man who refuses to learn, that's rather ironic.

[Bored chemist]

Have you done your homework yet?

What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?

I'm curious.
Have you googled it yet?
If not, that proves my point that you are the one refusing to consider things that might show that you're wrong- the same thing you keep accusing me of.

If you have found out what it means, you presumably know that, for example, the Earth's surface is finite but unbounded and has no edge.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Hello BC

Your approach & tactics are very clear to all of us.
Please read again the seven points and let me know if I have forgotten something.

For you the BBT Theory is the base for any sort of real science.
Therefore, any science law/prove/statement that contradicts the BBT should be eliminated ASAP.
In a case that you can't eliminate the message, you try to eliminate the messenger. (Not physically..)
It almost seems that the BBT is like a message from God for you. No less than that.
That is OK. You have the freedom to believe in any sort of theory/religious which you like.
However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.

I assume that there is no way to expect from you to discuss real science as you only have interest in BBT "science".
However, as you ask so nicely - I will answer your following question:

Have you done your homework yet?
What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?
Have you googled it yet?

Well, Based on Google:
Infinite = Limited
Unbounded = Unlimited
So the meaning of the "finite but unbounded" is Limited but Unlimited"
It is like a claim for: Short But Long, White But Black, Day But Night and so on.
That message by itself proves that the BBT is just a useless theory.

the Earth's surface is finite but unbounded and has no edge.

This is correct because we can set a curvature in the Earth's surface which represents a 2D in a space of 3D.

However, I have deeply explained why there is no way to get a curvature in a 3D space.
Therefore, in our real Universe if we go all the way to the left we would stay at the left up to the infinity.
There is no way to come back from the right while we are moving to the left.

Hence, as our scientists claim that there is no edge for our universe:

I was pointing out that current science says there is no edge to the Universe

Then there is only ONE solution for that kind of Universe:

either infinite

Yes - ONLY INFINITE Universe can fulfill the statement of "unbounded" or no edge.
Hence, Based on Google:
Infinite = Unlimited
unbounded = Unlimited
Therefore, the meaning of infinite but unbounded is Unlimited but unlimited!!!

So, from now on you have to agree that our real Universe can ONLY be infinite.
As you clearly don't have any intention to abandon the BBT, it's time for our scientists to update the BBT for the real INFINITE/unlimited size of our entire universe.

[Bored chemist]

Did you not realise that "finite but unbounded" is a technical term?
Try googling it as a phrase, rather than trying to do pointless word by word translations.

However, I have deeply explained why there is no way to get a curvature in a 3D space.

No, you have not.

It's just that you believe it  and so you think you have proved it.
In fact, you are wrong.

[Bored chemist]

For you the BBT Theory is the base for any sort of real science.

No, it's the other way round.
Science is the basis for the BBT.
It might be better if you stopped pretending you know what I think, and actually looked at what I said.

Therefore, any science law/prove/statement that contradicts the BBT should be eliminated ASAP.

No.
Any idea that contradicts either the laws of physics, or itself, is wrong and so it should be dropped without further consideration.

However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.

But that's not my aim.
It's your  bizarre idea.
My aim is to toss out stuff that does not make sense.
For example, an idea that is based on something which is plainly wrong should be put aside.
An idea that breaks the known laws of physics should be dumped.

I'm not actually all that bothered about the BBT.
If someone actually showed that it was wrong, I wouldn't care.
But, as I have pointed out before, this thread isn't about the BBY and I'd be happy if you never mentioned it again.

I'd like you to answer this- which refers to a toy universe- not the BBT.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/10/2020 08:50:15
If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09
So, once again
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you  should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).

You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.

So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

My aim is to toss out stuff that does not make sense.

The BBT is the last theory/idea in the whole Universe that makes any sort of sense.
How can you set the BBT and Sense in the same line?

We discuss now on the size of the Universe.

Where was that sense when you have stated that it is not important to understand the real size of the Universe?
How can you bypass the "sense" when it comes to the size of the Universe in the BBT?
The size is the MOST important feature for Universe as well as for any object or animal.
What is the sense to discuss on the features of A Galaxy, Star, Planet, Elephant or Ant without understanding their size/mass?
The impact of physics might be different for each size/mass.
The shape of the galaxy is different from the shape of a star and the shape of elephant is different from the shape of the ant due to the impact of physics on different sizes/mass.

A Star in the size of the MW galaxy and an Ant in the size of the elephant is unrealistic due to physics.

So, before we even set a theory - we MUST understand the size of Universe for this theory.
A theory for a universe without size is a theory without sense.

As you constantly refuse to tell what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT, then it is very clear that you are not using "sense" when it comes to protect the BBT

Actually there must be a sense why you accept and protect the BBT without understanding the size of the universe due to that theory.
The sense is that you afraid that at any size which you would highlight, the physics of law would prove that this theory is none realistic.
Therefore, you are using "Toy" universe when you discuss on size:

I'd like you to answer this- which refers to a toy universe- not the BBT.

Why do you insist to offer that toy Universe when it comes to size instead of discussing the real size of our universe?

Don't you agree that the sense is that you wish to protect that BBT?
Therefore, your following message is just incorrect:

I'm not actually all that bothered about the BBT.
If someone actually showed that it was wrong, I wouldn't care.

You are deeply bothered about the BBT and you really care about it!!!

I'm focusing now on the size of the Universe.
It is your obligation to offer the size of the Universe based on the BBT.

Please don't use a toy universe for a size, don't answer a question by question and don't jump to other issue.
Your tactics are very clear to all of us.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:11:41
However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.

But that's not my aim.

Well, if this isn't your aim as you say, then why do you refuse to tell us what is the size of the Universe based on this Theory?

Any idea that contradicts either the laws of physics, or itself, is wrong and so it should be dropped without further consideration.

Why do you refuse to evaluate the size of BBT' universe based on real law of physics?

Actually, do you confirm that in order to support the BBT, new set of "physics law" had been developed especially for that BBT?

Therefore, for the last time:
Can you tell us what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
Yes Or NO???
I insist to get a clear size for the real Universe based on the BBT (assuming that it is a theory for the Universe)
If you can't give a size for our Universe based on that BBT - and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.
Once we agree on that we can move on to any question which you might have.

[Bored chemist]

How can you set the BBT and Sense in the same line?

I don't think I did.

We discuss now on the size of the Universe.

OK
You made a claim about the size of the universe.
You said this

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

And  I pointed out that you are wrong
The CMBR is not an indication that the Universe is infinite.
I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.
So you can not say that the CMBR shows that space is infinite.

And since you base Theory D on the idea that the CMBR tells you something, but the CMBR does not tell you that thing, Theory D is based on something which is not true.

And I keep asking you to face that.
But you don't.
But you keep going on about BBT which isn't relevant.

Well, if this isn't your aim as you say, then why do you refuse to tell us what is the size of the Universe based on this Theory?

I don't tell you what BBT tells you about the universe's size because the thread isn't about the BBT.
Incidentally, you have it backwards
The observations of the universe tell us what the BBT should be, rather than the other way round.

Why do you refuse to evaluate the size of BBT' universe based on real law of physics?

The theory has been looked at by people who, unlike you, understand the conservation laws, but that's not the point.
The thread isn't about the BBT.
It's about "Theory D" which we can write off because it is inconsistent with the laws of physics.

It doesn't matter if BBT is right or not.
We still know that "theory D" is wrong.
Both because it is based on a mistake about the CMBR, and also because it breaks the laws of physics.

You are deeply bothered about the BBT and you really care about it!!!

It's going to be quicker if you don't tell lies about either my beliefs or your ability to deduce them.

It is your obligation to offer the size of the Universe based on the BBT.

No, it isn't.
Because (1) I don't really care about the BBT and (2) The thread is about theory D which is known to be wrong because it breaks the conservation laws and is based on a flawed understanding of the CMBR.

Actually, do you confirm that in order to support the BBT, new set of "physics law" had been developed especially for that BBT?

No.
The only one trying to invent new laws of physics is you.
You are inventing new laws that let you break mass/energy conservation.
Real physics (including teh BBT, as it happens) does not do that.

Please don't use a toy universe for a size,

I never did.
It's just that you don't seem able to understand why I did introduce that toy universe.
The only reason for me bringing it up was that it shows that you are wrong in the first two lines of the thread- the ones I quoted earlier in this post.

Can you tell us what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
Yes Or NO???

Who cares? If you actually wanted to know, you would google it.

The BBT has nothing to do with the failure of "Theory D".
You are the only one who keeps talking about BBT. It's particularly stupid for you to claim I'm the one who is deeply attached to it.
It's pretty clear that you are obsessed by your hatred of it.

Your tactics are very clear to all of us.

Your "tactic" is to repeatedly fail to answer simple questions about "Theory D".
It's not good debating practice and  it's even worse science.
But I guess  it's the only option open when you know that your idea doesn't work.

and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.

I don't care about the flowers in your garden.
Does that mean they are garbage?
Or do you now recognise that your statement makes no sense?

Why do you insist to offer that toy Universe when it comes to size instead of discussing the real size of our universe?

I didn't.
You just don't understand that I introduced the toy universe to show that the first two lines of your thread are false.

I keep asking you to address that.
You keep not answering.

Once we agree on that

We are not going to agree that your flowers should be put in the garbage because I don't care about them. It doesn't make sense.
And we aren't going to agree that the BBT should be put in the garbage because I don't care about it, because that wouldn't make sense either.

I'm focusing now on the size of the Universe.

Really?
You seem to be focussing on the BBT.

So, before we even set a theory - we MUST understand the size of Universe for this theory.

No.
That's obviously wrong.
It's possible to have a theory which says "the size of the universe is changing constantly"
And, in that case, the theory can not possibly tell you the size.
You need experiments and observations to do that.

Therefore, you are using "Toy" universe when you discuss on size:

No.
That's your misunderstanding.

Do you now realise that the point of that toy was to show that your understanding off the CMBR was wrong?

don't answer a question by question and don't jump to other issue.

Who are you to tell me how I should answer a question?
But, speaking of answering questions, have a go at this one.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 16:08:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/10/2020 08:50:15
If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09
So, once again
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you  should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).

You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.

So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

OK
You made a claim about the size of the universe.
You said this
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

And  I pointed out that you are wrong
The CMBR is not an indication that the Universe is infinite.
I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.
So you cannot say that the CMBR shows that space is infinite.

And since you base Theory D on the idea that the CMBR tells you something, but the CMBR does not tell you that thing, Theory D is based on something which is not true.

Your following statement is totally incorrect:
"The CMBR is not an indication that the Universe is infinite."
As the BBR radiation in the CMBR is a vital indication for an infinite Universe.

Your following statement is also based on a pure imagination:
"I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.
So you cannot say that the CMBR shows that space is infinite."

Your understanding about the BBR is not based on real science. It is based on imagination and wishful list.

I have already deeply explained it before.
However, you are master in asking the same question after getting full answer for your question.
So, I would answer that question again.

The question is: What is the meaning of the Black body radiation in the CMBR?

In order to answer that question, you must understand the real meaning of BBR as it is clearly explained by the science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
An ideal black body in thermal equilibrium has two notable properties:[2]
"It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.
It is a diffuse emitter: measured per unit area perpendicular to the direction, the energy is radiated isotropically, independent of direction.
An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example). Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. When the radiation confined in such an enclosure is in thermal equilibrium, the radiation emitted from the hole will be as great as from any body at that equilibrium temperature."

So, please read it again:
"An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example)."
Therefore, let's assume that we can divide the universe into many large isolated enclosures by real walls.
I hope that we all agree that at each one of those isolated enclosure the radiation would carry a BBR.

Let's try to understand the outcome at the moment of eliminating those walls

1. In a finite Universe.
If we eliminate the walls between the isolated enclosures in a finite Universe, and still keep only the envelope around that Universe, then this finite Universe would still carry a BBR.
However, If we eliminate the envelope around the infinite Universe - the BBR would be eliminated.

2. In Infinite Universe -
In this Universe there is infinite number of isolated enclosures.
In each one of those enclosures there is a BBR.
Our scientists claim that the Universe at large scale is homogenous and isotropic.
So, if each isolated enclosure would be big enough to cover that large scale, the CMBR in each enclosure would be identical to all the other isolated enclosures in that infinite Universe.
As it is infinite Universe even if we take out the walls between all the infinite no. of the isolated enclosures in that Universe and even eliminate the envelope around the Infinite Universe, the BBR in the CMBR would stay the same.
Therefore, a infinite Universe acts as a Universe without edge.
Hence, ONLY a Infinite Universe could carry a Black body radiation without any need for an envelope around it.

Please be ware that in that article there is not even a single word about your imagination of "a model universe that was finite in time and extent" as you have stated:

I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.

That model is imagination model. The real science doesn't cover that kind of imagination.
Therefore, if for the BBT you need a model universe that was finite in time and extent then this model is non realistic and not part of any BBR explanation. Hence, the whole BBT should be set in the garbage.

I don't tell you what BBT tells you about the universe's size because the thread isn't about the BBT.
Incidentally, you have it backwards
The observations of the universe tell us what the BBT should be, rather than the other way round.

This thread is all about real science
The title of the tread is irrelevant.
If you wish I have no problem to open a specific tread about the BBT.
In any case, A theory for a Universe without a clear estimation for its size can't be consider as a theory or even as an idea.
In all your long answer you can't specify the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
There is a clear answer for that.
At any finite size that you would chose, we might prove that BBT theory is incorrect.
So, you bypass that issue by long answer without real data.
It is very clear that you and our scientists don't wish to deal with that issue
Hence, as I have stated:

Can you tell us what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
Yes Or NO???
I insist to get a clear size for the real Universe based on the BBT (assuming that it is a theory for the Universe)
If you can't give a size for our Universe based on that BBT - and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.
Once we agree on that we can move on to any question which you might have.

The BBT without a universe size should be set in the garbage.
Therefore, starting from this moment without offering the size of the Universe based on the BBT, this theory is irrelevant.

[Bored chemist]

As the BBR radiation in the CMBR is a vital indication for an infinite Universe.

You agreed that it wasn't. The CMBR would look the same in a finite universe.

Your understanding about the BBR is not based on real science. It is based on imagination and wishful list.

No.
You already accepted that the BBR would be the same in a finite universe.

So, please read it again:
"An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example)."

I can read it as many times as I like.
But  you are missing the point.

A hole in a box is not the only way to get BBR.

A candle flame gives a very good approximation to BBR.
So does a tungsten lamp or a glowing barbeque.

So does the Sun.

So you can not say that th e universe is a box with a hole in it because it emits BBR.

Do you understand that?

However, If we eliminate the envelope around the infinite Universe - the BBR would be eliminated.

Nonsense, there's no envelope round a candle flame, but it still emits BBR.

Hence, ONLY a Infinite Universe could carry a Black body radiation without any need for an envelope around it.

That is not true of a barbeque and it is not true of a universe.
It's just stuff you made up because you didn't understand that teh "box with a hole in it" is only one example of something that emits BBR.

Do you see that?

Do you agree that a candle emits BBR (to a good approximation)?

The real science doesn't cover that kind of imagination.

Yes it does.
It is called a "thought experiment"

Were you not aware of that?
Science has been using them for hundreds of years.

Therefore, if for the BBT you need a model universe that was finite in time and extent then this model is non realistic and not part of any BBR explanation. Hence, the whole BBT should be set in the garbage.

The Toy universe was nothing to do with teh BBT.
It is just proof that you are (still) wrong.

This thread is all about real science

No
It is about "Theory D" which breaks the laws of physics.

In any case, A theory for a Universe without a clear estimation for its size can't be consider as a theory or even as an idea.

Yes it can.
As I said, if the model says the universe is changing then it is impossible to say what the size is.

In all your long answer you can't specify the size of the Universe based on the BBT.

I never bothered to try because the thread isn't about the BBT.
But, you can always google the answer if you want.
It's stupid to pretend that the answer does not exist.

The BBT without a universe size should be set in the garbage.

The universe may not have a size. (For example, if the size is changing).
If that's true then any "theory" which purports to tell you the "size of the universe" is wrong because the theory doesn't know what the time is.

If you can't give a size for our Universe based on that BBT - and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.

You have stated that repeatedly.
And I have shown that it makes no sense

We are not going to agree that your flowers should be put in the garbage because I don't care about them. It doesn't make sense.
And we aren't going to agree that the BBT should be put in the garbage because I don't care about it, because that wouldn't make sense either.


You repeating it does not stop it being wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You agreed that it wasn't. The CMBR would look the same in a finite universe.

Never & ever.
I have stated that a finite Universe with envelop around it would carry a BBR.
However, as there is no envelop or walls around our real universe, a finite Universe would never ever has the ability to carry a BBR.

A hole in a box is not the only way to get BBR.

You have a fatal mistake.
The BBR in this box isn't due to that hole but due to the fact that it is isolated enclosure.
The Hole is just used as a monitor point for the radiation inside that box.

A candle flame gives a very good approximation to BBR.
So does a tungsten lamp or a glowing barbeque.

So does the Sun.

So you can not say that th e universe is a box with a hole in it because it emits BBR.

Do you understand that?

It is very clear that you don't have a basic knowledge in Black body radiation.
It is correct that a candle flame gives a very good approximation to BBR. So does a tungsten lamp or a glowing barbeque.
However, it is not due to the Hole or due to the Box.
It is due to a micro photosphere around those sources of light.
In order to have better understanding please look at the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png

An idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation"
So the heat of the candle flame or the tungsten lamp generates some sort of micro photosphere around the source of light. That photosphere converts the radiation into BBR.
Same issue with the Sun.
Its intense heat generates a photosphere around it, and due to this photosphere we get the BBR radiation.

Therefore, a LED which doesn't create intense heat doesn't have a photosphere around its source of light and therefore it has no BBR.

Is it clear to you by now?

Therefore, the universe can't be compare for a single source of light with intense heat, as a Sun or a candle flame but to a box with unlimited sources of radiation.
As the total temp of the CMBR is very law, it is clear that there is no photosphere around the Universe.
So, we need to consider the Universe as box with cold source of light LEDs inside it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body_realization.svg
An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure

In this case, the BBR would be achieved ONLY if the box would be insulated enclosure.
Therefore, a finite Universe without an envelope wouldn't be able to carry any sort of BBR.
While the Only solution for that is Infinite Box with Infinite No of light sources, which means INFINITE Universe.

There is no other alternative for our universe to carry BBR.
Only a infinite universe can do it!!!

It's time for you to focus on real science and stop reading that imagination science which is called the "BBT science" as there is no science in the BBT.
 

It is about "Theory D" which breaks the laws of physics.

The BBT is the only fiction that breaks real laws of physics.

[Bored chemist]

However, it is not due to the Hole or due to the Box.

I am glad you finally understand this. That's the start of the point I have been trying to get you to understand.
OK
Now that you realise " a hole in  a box" is nothing to do with BBR, do you realise that all the stuff you said about boxes with holes in is irrelevant?

And so all the deductions you made about the size of a universe- based on ideas of boxes with holes in- are wrong.
Do you understand that too?

Never & ever.

Here's what you said.

In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.

And, the implication is that- in any direction where you can't see the edge , you would see teh CMBR.

So, you really did agree that's what you would see.
OK it only applies if you are in the middle of the universe. But we know that, if there's an edge, we can't see it, so we know that we must be in (or near) the middle.

So, as long as you weren't too near the edge, you would see the same CMBR that we do see.

You did agree that. And you have only started to pretend that you didn't since I pointed out that it means you have contradicted yourself.

I asked the same questions lots of times and you failed to answer it then you gave that bad answer- it's bad because it isn't clear.
And the stuff I quoted above is your answer to the question.

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

Are you saying that it is not the answer?
If it isn't, why did you lie about it by saying this?

Why do you ask the same question again and again while you have clearly got full answer?

You really did agree that, near the middle of that toy universe- which is finite, the CMBR would look exactly the same as in our universe.

Therefore, a LED which doesn't create intense heat doesn't have a photosphere around its source of light and therefore it has no BBR.

Is it clear to you by now?

What is clear to me is that you do not understand BBR or the meaning of the word "photosphere".

Only stars have photospheres.
An LED doesn't emit BBR.
But a person does- that's how PIR motion sensors work.
Are you saying that you have your own personal photosphere?

It's better if you don't make up silly ideas like that.

In this case, the BBR would be achieved ONLY if the box would be insulated enclosure.

No
That's just not true.
BBR can be produced without a box with a hole.
It can be produced, for example, by a xenon plasma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp

And, in much the same way, by a hydrogen plasma in the early universe.

You even said that it's not true.

it is not due to the Hole or due to the Box.

Unfortunately, you then made up stuff

It is due to a micro photosphere around those sources of light.

The thing is that the photosphere of a star is made of gas.
But in a tungsten lamp, the filament is surrounded by a vacuum (at least, it is for the ones used as BBR sources in physics labs)
So there's nothing there for the photosphere to be made from.
So you are clearly wrong.
It's just tosh you made up.
Do you see the irony?

Actually, do you confirm that in order to support the BBT, new set of "physics law" had been developed especially for that BBT?

You are trying to develop a "physics law" (- the idea that everything has a photosphere-) that is only there to allow you to talk nonsense about BBR.

Isn't that what you are doing?
Why else are you pretending that a light bulb is a star and has a photosphere?

If you were inside a (really big) candle flame, what you would see was the BBR from that flame.
Not because it has a wall round it, but because it is a wall. Big fires are opaque.
So are dense plasmas like the early universe.

So the problems with your idea are:
The photosphere thing only exists with stars. It's irrelevant and absurd to apply it to anything else.
The emission of BBR does not require a "box"- candle flame, a tungsten lamp  or a person proves that
The early universe was black and could emit BBR without needing to be in a box.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You have fatal mistake. So let me explain it again:
The following message is correct

You really did agree that, near the middle of that toy universe- which is finite, the CMBR would look exactly the same as in our universe.

However, I claim that a CMBR of a finite Universe would never ever carry a BBR.
Is it clear to you???

The thing is that the photosphere of a star is made of gas.
But in a tungsten lamp, the filament is surrounded by a vacuum (at least, it is for the ones used as BBR sources in physics labs)
So there's nothing there for the photosphere to be made from.
So you are clearly wrong.

As I have stated, it is very clear that you have no clue about the source of the BBR.
So, please look again at the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
An idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation"

In this case the BBR is created due to the backwards reflection of the radiation from the edge of that photosphere.
So, the photosphere acts as a unique layer which reflects back the radiation.
Therefore, any sort of layer that reflects back the radiation would create the BBR.

With regards to the intense heat around the source of light as Candle or even hot plasma:
The heat itself sets some sort of a very hot layer around the source of light.
There is no need to have gas in that layer.
Just the intense heat itself is good enough.
That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.
Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.
Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.

It can be produced, for example, by a xenon plasma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp
And, in much the same way, by a hydrogen plasma in the early universe.

The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.

So, I agree that there is good chance that the hydrogen plasma in the early universe could create a BBR.
However, that BBR would stay as long as we the hot hydrogen plasma is still hot in that early universe.
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.
So, the idea that you can keep the BBR from that early universe after the hydrogen plasma had been cooled down is a pure fiction from the unrealistic "BBT science".
In the same way - if you cool down the sun to 2.7K you won't get any sort of BBR radiation from that object.
Therefore, the BBR can stay as long as the heat is high enough.

However, in our real Universe the CMBR temp is only 2.7K. That temp can't generate any sort of BBR due to the back reflection of intense heat.

Conclusion:
There are only two options to get the BBR.
1. A single source of an intense heat
2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.

The CMBR temp is only 2.7K. Therefore, it can't be considered as intense heat.
Hence, the only possibility for the CMBR to carry a BBR is just in an isolated enclosure.
That could be achievable in a finite universe with an envelope or in infinite Universe.
As the finite universe with envelop is not realistic, the only possibility for the CMBR to carry BBR is if it is located in Infinite Universe.

Is it finely clear to you???

[Bored chemist]

However, I claim that a CMBR of a finite Universe would never ever carry a BBR.
Is it clear to you???

It is clear that you are wrong.

As I have stated, it is very clear that you have no clue about the source of the BBR.

Yes I have, unlike you.
You tell me to look at "An idealized view of the cross-section of a star."
But the BBR of the CMBR is not due to a star.

So the stuff about how stars are made up is irrelevant, isn't it?
So it is clear that you do not understand the BBR we see throughout the universe.

In this case the BBR is created due to the backwards reflection of the radiation from the edge of that photosphere.

Very obviously, the light that gets out of stars is not caused by light being reflected by some imaginary coating round stars.
 Not that it matters- the stars do not produce the CMBR.

So, the photosphere acts as a unique layer which reflects back the radiation.

No.

Therefore, any sort of layer that reflects back the radiation would create the BBR.

LOL
That is as close to anyone actually trying to argue that "Black is white" as I have ever seen.
The thing about BBR is that it is emitted by black things- like hot coal.
That's where the name is from.
And the thing about black is that it does not reflect; it absorbs.

You are tying yourself in knots here trying to pretend that you are right. All you succeed in doing is looking more and more foolish.

There is no need to have gas in that layer.
Just the intense heat itself is good enough.
That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.
Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.
Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.

That is just rubbish you made up.
Only stars have a photosphere.
And your magical idea is a thing that is black and white at the same time.

The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.

Not "could"; does.
It's an experimental fact.

However, that BBR would stay as long

no
Photons last "forever".
Unless there is something to absorb them, they carry on forever.
And that's the point. There was a time when the universe cooled enough to let the photons through.

Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.

No.
Only if it hit something which absorbed it but practically the only thing in the universe was hydrogen, which is transparent. so teh BBR carried on. We can tell because some of it is still reaching us.

So, the idea that you can keep the BBR from that early universe after the hydrogen plasma had been cooled down is a pure fictio

Why is it "pure fiction" to say that light will pass through hydrogen?
Because that's all I claim.
Since there's nothing to stop it, that light from the hot dense plasma carries on until it hits something.

In the same way - if you cool down the sun to 2.7K you won't get any sort of BBR radiation from that object.

First of all, actually, yes you would.
Secondly, nobody was saying anything about cooling the Sun down.
The Sun is not the source of the CMBR. Nor is any other star.

That temp can't generate any sort of BBR due to the back reflection of intense heat.

That is meaningless or wrong.
Things at about 2K definitely do emit BBR. It is a real problem for people trying to set records for lowest temperature etc. the stuff found their apparatus is cooled by liquid helium, but that is still "hot" enough to warm their experiment by radiation.

If you actually knew about science, you would know that.

Conclusion:
There are only two options to get the BBR.
1. A single source of an intense heat
2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.

No there is a third, obvious option.
The man who thinks that white things are black is wrong.

So, for example, you can get BBR from a person.
That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."

So you are obviously wrong.

Why don't you actually learn about BBR?
Then you can look less foolish in the future?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04
The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.

Not "could"; does.
It's an experimental fact.

Do you have a basic clue what is the explanation for that experimental fact?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04
There is no need to have gas in that layer.
Just the intense heat itself is good enough.
That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.
Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.
Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.

That is just rubbish you made up.
Only stars have a photosphere.

You don't have a basic knowledge in real science and it seems that you don't wish to understand the explanation for the experimental fact
For any fact there must be an explanation.
As you don't understand that explanation (and you even don't care about it) - you don't understand real science!!!

It is clear that you are wrong.

I have backup my understanding by real articles about BBR.
You are just highlight statements without any backup by real BBR articles.
That clearly shows that you don't have a basic knowledge in real science of black body radiation.
From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04
Conclusion:
There are only two options to get the BBR.
1. A single source of an intense heat
2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.

No there is a third, obvious option.
The man who thinks that white things are black is wrong.
So, for example, you can get BBR from a person.
That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."
So you are obviously wrong.

That respond shows again that you have a severe mistake.
You claim that "you can get BBR from a person"
First it is your obligation to prove this statement. So please offer the article which supports this understanding
Second, even if this is correct, a person should be considered as a single source. The average temp of a person is 37c.
Therefore, I assume that if you set this person in a very cold environment, he should radiate some heat.
However, it is very clear that at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.
Therefore, please backup your statement about a person that could radiate BBR radiation at any environment temp by real article.
In any case, at the maximum we should consider that person as a single source with heat (or even intense heat with reference to its local aria temp).
Therefore, this person meets option no. 1 as I have stated.
Hence, you have failed to prove that there is other option (as you have stated) and you have proved that you have no clue in BBR.

no
Photons last "forever".
Unless there is something to absorb them, they carry on forever.
And that's the point. There was a time when the universe cooled enough to let the photons through.

A single photon doesn't carry any sort of BBR.
I have clearly explained how the BBR could be created.
The photons cross the space at the speed of light.
Therefore, if the Universe was compact at the early time, the radiation which might carry a BBR radiation during that early time had to cross the universe long time ago.

But the BBR of the CMBR is not due to a star.
So the stuff about how stars are made up is irrelevant, isn't it?
So it is clear that you do not understand the BBR we see throughout the universe.

No
The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.
The idea that it is due to the early universe Era is a pure fiction!!!
We all agree that the radiation is moving at the speed of light. Therefore, there is no way to keep the radiation in a finite aria even if we call that aria - finite Universe.
The are two options to keep a radiation in a limited aria or finite Universe:
1, The finite Universe acts as isolated enclosure. We all agree that this isn't the case
2. there is curvature in the finite Universe - This is also incorrect and I have already proved it.
Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.
If the Universe could hold the radiation from the early time for so long time, then it had to hold also this supernova also for very long time.
This isn't the case, as the Universe isn't holding any radiation.
This idea by itself is the BIGGEST MISTAKE of the modern science.
The CMBR that we see arrive to our location from the infinity of our current Universe and it is based on all the radiation sources in our Universe including Galaxies, Stars and any sort of real matter.

Conclusion:
There are only two options to get the BBR.
1. A single source of an intense heat
2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.

No there is a third, obvious option.

So, please - from now on you have to prove you’re the third option by real BBR article.
I wouldn't accept any more imagination from your side without real science articles about the specific subject.

[Bored chemist]

Do you have a basic clue what is the explanation for that experimental fact?

Yes, I do.
Like I said before, I'm a spectroscopist. This is the stuff I'm trained to know.
That's why I find it to so easy to point out the errors in the stuff you post.
There's an explanation here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_spectrum

You don't have a basic knowledge in real science

That's just childish.
I'm not the one who thought that the CMBR was due to stars.

You are just highlight statements without any backup by real BBR articles.
That clearly shows that you don't have a basic knowledge in real science of black body radiation.

No, it does not.

From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.

You know how I said (a couple of times now, I think) that I'm a scientist who does this sort of thing for a living...
Who do you think WRITES articles?

That's why I'm not actually obliged to cite them; it would be redundant.

You claim that "you can get BBR from a person"
First it is your obligation to prove this statement.

If you actually knew the relevant science, you would accept it as not merely true, but obvious.
However, for the benefit of the kindergarteners

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1#c19
Which says
" within the range from 5 μm to 20 μm , the skin closely obeys the laws of blackbody emission".

I'm not stupid; if it wasn't true I wouldn't say it.
I leave making false statements to you. You make plenty, for example.

The average temp of a person is 37c.

No, that's the core temp, the skin is significantly cooler.

However, it is very clear that at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.

That's not how it works.The emission from the skin is determined by the temperature of the skin.
That is controlled by a number of factors- like drinking alcohol- but the physics doesn't care.
If the room is warmer than the person, the person still emits the same amount of IR.
But the room also emits IR that's pretty close to BBR and the person absorbs (at least some of) that.

Everything that is above absolute zero emits radiation - roughly in accordance with BBR. (In much better accordance with Kirchhoff's radiation laws)
(Again, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would already knowthat,but you are a bigoted fool so here's the wiki page for you.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation

Why is it that you say this

From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.

when it is you who is making up imaginary stuff about BBR?

A single photon doesn't carry any sort of BBR.

Nobody said it did.

I have clearly explained how the BBR could be created.

You haven't explained anything clearly, and you haven't explained BBR correctly- because you don't understand it.
That's why you can post nonsense like this

at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.

In reality, he emits at a rate determined by his temperature, not that of the environment he is in.

How much heat he absorbs from his environment is determined by the outside temperature, but that is another matter.

Therefore, if the Universe was compact at the early time, the radiation which might carry a BBR radiation during that early time had to cross the universe long time ago.

Congratulations, you have found the experimental evidence for expansion.
This expansion of space also stretches the wavelengths which is why the light- produced at a temperature of something like 10,000K reaches us with a temperature of 2.7K.

The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.

Since stars are not at 2.7K that is impossible.

The idea that it is due to the early universe Era is a pure fiction!!!

That's the only possible way for it to be so evenly distributed.

Therefore, there is no way to keep the radiation in a finite aria even if we call that aria

Stop talking about songs, it makes it look like you are not paying attention.
Since the universe is expanding, the light takes longer to cross the  universe than the age of the universe.

there is curvature in the finite Universe - This is also incorrect and I have already proved it.

You haven't proved anything.
But, yes the universe is curved.
So what?

Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.

But, according to you, that is impossible.
The light would somehow" get cold" on the way.

Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.

If you were right, the same thing would happen to light from a supernova.
But we see them.
So we know you are wrong.

This isn't the case, as the Universe isn't holding any radiation.

It isn't "holding" it, it is just that the universe id big. So big that it takes longer than the age of the universe for light to cross it.
That's why the light is still getting here.
And ew know that because we see it.

Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.

No we don't.
Supernovae would give the wrong spectrum.
They are hot and emit UV and Xrays.
The CMBR is cold and is made of microwaves.

So, your idea is plainly wrong.

So, please - from now on you have to prove you’re the third option by real BBR article.

I already did.
You now have an article that says people more or less emit BBR.
And you know, because I already pointed it out, that.

you can get BBR from a person.
That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."

So you are obviously wrong.

Why don't you actually learn about BBR?
Then you can look less foolish in the future?

I wouldn't accept any more imagination from your side without real science articles about the specific subject.

I'm the one providing science.
But you have this teh wrong way round.
Al I am doing  is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.

You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.

You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.

You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Congratulations, you have found the experimental evidence for expansion.
This expansion of space also stretches the wavelengths which is why the light- produced at a temperature of something like 10,000K reaches us with a temperature of 2.7K.

Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K
It is just imagination.
Therefore, your statement the 2.7K is the outcome of the expansion is also one more imagination.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:05:32
The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.

Since stars are not at 2.7K that is impossible.

This is real.
The CMB in our Universe is direct radiation from all the stars and matter in our infinite Universe.
In order to prove that it is feasible, we can do the following:
Let's assume that we can eliminate the CMBR from our Universe.
Let's also assume that we can isolate our galaxy in some sort of a sphere.
This shere would be considered as isolated enclosure or Oven.
If we do so, we should find that the temp of that isolated enclosure is going up.
Technically after long enough time we can achieve that 2.7K.
Now, just consider for one moment that our real universe is infinite.
We would divide in to infinite no. of isolated enclosures.
Let's assume that the total matter in each isolated enclosure is the same everywhere.
Therefore, the temp in each isolated enclosure would be the same.
So, once we eliminate the walls, the infinite Universe should keep that 2.7K as well as the BBR.
Therefore, our universe would keep that temp of 2.7K and the BBR forever and ever.
If we would come back to the universe in 10 Billion years from now (or 100 Trillions Y), we would see a similar Universe with a similar CMBR.
Hence, this temp doesn't represent a transient situation in the CMBR due to the expansion as it is here to stay forever and ever.
Actually, based on the BBT that temp should be reduced by time.
I wonder what might be the change in the CMBR temp after 10 or 100 Years.
Is there any possibility to verify that change by using very accurate measurements tool?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.

If you were right, the same thing would happen to light from a supernova.
But we see them.
So we know you are wrong.

No, you are wrong
We can observe the supernova, but for a very short time.
So, if the supernova activity took place for only 10 m, then this is the time duration that we can observe it.
No more than that.
So, it might take the supernova radiation 13 By to cross the space until it gets to us, but then we can observe it for only 10 minutes.
In the same token, if there was a radiation from the early Universe, that radiation couldn't last longer than the time of its existence.
The supernova proves that there is no expansion in the Universe.
If there was, we could observe the supernova for many years or even million years.
Hence, as we can get the supernova radiation at the same duration as it really took place in the past without any sort of time extension, it proves that the radiation from the early Era of the Universe can't exist in the space more that its real duration of time.
Therefore, there is no expansion in space!!!

Supernovae would give the wrong spectrum.
They are hot and emit UV and Xrays.
The CMBR is cold and is made of microwaves.

The spectrum is none relevant to the duration.
As  the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.

[Bored chemist]

Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K

That's the temperature associated with the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen.
It always was.
It always will be.

Therefore, your statement the 2.7K is the outcome of the expansion is also one more imagination.

No
We can measure the CMBT temperature; it's about 2.7K
It's an experimental observation, but you have such a poor understanding that you think it's something I imagined.

Technically after long enough time we can achieve that 2.7K.
Now, just consider for one moment that our real universe is infinite.

Then, after an infinite time, it will all be as hot as the stars. That's essentially Olber's paradox.
It's one of the many reasons we know you are wrong.

Therefore, our universe would keep that temp of 2.7K and the BBR forever and ever.

No
The stars would keep on heating it until it reached about the same temperature as the sun.
Fortunately, you are wrong, and the universe hasn't been here forever.

So, if the supernova activity took place for only 10 m

... then it wouldn't be a supernova.

In the same token, if there was a radiation from the early Universe, that radiation couldn't last longer than the time of its existence.

Not a problem. The universe is still here.
It didn't last 10 minutes.
It has lasted about 14 billion years.
So the light carries on reaching us for14 billion years.
And, in another 14 billion years, exactly the same thing will happen, but the "14" will be replaced with"28".
No problem.

The spectrum is none relevant to the duration.

Nobody said it was.
But it is relevant to the temperature.

As  the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Anyway.

Al I am doing  is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.

You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.

You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.

You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02
Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K

That's the temperature associated with the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen.
It always was.
It always will be.

The idea of the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen is one more imagination, as this activity won't take place without Magnetic field. As our scientists do not claim for magnetic field at the recombination era, then the whole idea is a pure fiction.
We clearly see today that activity of recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen at the accretion disc around the SMBH. If we could shut down the Mighty SMBH Magnetic field, not even one Hydrogen would be created.


 

Then, after an infinite time, it will all be as hot as the stars. That's essentially Olber's paradox.
It's one of the many reasons we know you are wrong.

I have already explained that issue.
However, I can do it again for you.
Olber paradox is correct as long as the Infinite galaxies in the Infinite universe won't move away from each other faster than the speed of light.
Olber didn't know that in our real infinite universe the far end galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light.
So, theoretically, we can claim that starting from a distance of R, we can't get a radiation from any galaxy that is moving away faster than the speed of light with reference to our location.
Therefore, although at any direction there are infinite no of galaxies, we can get the radiation from only the galaxies which are located at the sphere which is represented by R.
Hence, the CMBR is based ONLY on those FINITE galaxies in that R sphere which is just a minor point in the infinite Universe.
So again, although we are living in infinite Universe with Infinite Galaxies, we can get a radiation from only a finite no of galaxies.
Therefore, as the CMBR is based on a finite no of galaxies in an infinite universe, it could get to a maximal temp of 2.7K
Hence, from any location that we might be in that infinite galaxy, we can get a radiation from that limited R sphere. Therefore, we get a perfect symmetric radiation from any direction.

Fortunately, you are wrong, and the universe hasn't been here forever.

The Universe was here forever and it will stay forever and ever!!!
You and all our "BBT scientists" don't have a basic knowledge about the real activity of that infinite Universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02
As  the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills the expansion idea and the whole BBT fiction.
Once you confirm that the supernova from the early universe could last for only few minutes or few days, then it shows that the expansion has no impact on its duration.
Hence, if the expansion has no impact on the supernova, it surly has no impact on the radiation from the recombination era.
Therefore, if there was a radiation during the recombination era which last for X years, that X represents the maximal time duration that we could get a radiation from that era.

So, it is very clear that you want to believe in imagination.
The BBT is imagination.
The expansion is imagination
The Inflation is imagination.
However, you like it and also all the other "BBT scientists".
You all are locked inside the BBT black box without any ability or willing to unleash your Knowledge and break down the BBT chain that locks you so strongly.
I hope that at least you and the other "BBT scientists" enjoy your time in that black box.