[Bored chemist]

as this activity won't take place without Magnetic field.

Protons have a magnetic field, so do electrons.
Not that it matters much.

. As our scientists do not claim for magnetic field at the recombination era

Yes we do... because every single proton and every single electron in the universe has a magnetic field.
You are the one writing fiction.

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.

If they are moving away that fast then your "oven " cools down in a finite time to practically zero.
But we aren't at zero, so you are wrong.

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

No.
After an infinite time, the temperature falls to zero- not least because all the "nearby" stars burn out.

You and all our "BBT scientists" don't have a basic knowledge about the real activity of that infinite Universe.

There's really no such thing as a "BBT scientist".
There are scientists- who understand physics.
And there is you, who doesn't.

It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills

Where did the mythical supernova come from?

Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
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)]

Yes we do... because every single proton and every single electron in the universe has a magnetic field.
You are the one writing fiction.

So do you claim that when electron see a nearby proton they merge into Hydrogen just by using their internal magnetic field? What about a request for external Electromagnetic field or pressure?
Sorry, you are missing the most important impact of electromagnetic fild which is - Transformation of energy.
An infinite energy won't create even one single particle without EM.
Therefore, the Big bang energy wouldn't be transformed into even a single electron or proton without external EM.
Those electron and proton won't merge to hydrogen atom without external EM.
This is the meaning of real science!
So, how any one which consider himself as scientists could believe that somehow a Hydrogen Atoms could be created from the BBT energy without real source of electromagnetic energy  transformation.
Sorry -  the whole BBT is based on fiction and non realistic wishful list.

No.
After an infinite time, the temperature falls to zero- not least because all the "nearby" stars burn out.

As you don't understand how our real Universe works, you have no clue about new created star process.
You have no idea about the new particles/atoms/molecular that are created in the accretion disc around the BH/SMBH
Those atoms/molecular are used to form new stars in our Universe.
So, although galaxies are moving away from each other while stars might burn out - new stars and new galaxies are created constantly.
Therefore, our Universe would live forever and by average it would carry that 2.7K CMBR forever and ever.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:59:58
It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills the BBT

Where did the mythical supernova come from?

How can you ignore the great meaning of a supernova form the far end stars?
Some of those stars are located at a very far end of our Universe.
So, based on the BBT their age is quite close to the recombination era age.
Those BBT scientists tell us that the radiation that took place at that Era should stay with us almost forever due to the expansion in space.
If that is correct then how it could be that the supernova radiation which comes almost from a similar time frame stay with us for just few hours or few days?
Why the expansion in space can't hold the supernova also forever as it does with the recombination era radiation?
Sorry - The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that  there is no space expansion in our Universe.
 

There's really no such thing as a "BBT scientist".
There are scientists- who understand physics.
And there is you, who doesn't.

Any scientist which accept the idea that somehow without external EM it is feasible to set Hydrogen Atoms from the BBT energy should be considered as BBT scientist.
Any scientist which reject the real meaning of the supernova and accept the unrealistic idea of expansion in space should be considered as BBT scientist.
Any scientist which believes in the BBT imagination should be considered as BBT scientist as there is no science in the BBT. It is pure imagination.
You are clearly part of those BBT scientists.

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.

No, we should share the same job for real science!!!
Unfortunately, there is nothing real in the BBT science.
I have backup any statement by real evidences and articles.
You think that you are master of knowledge in science, but you are master in BBT imagination.

It is very clear to me that you would keep the BBT under any contradicted evidence.
Therefore, you can keep on with this BBT imagination and call it "science" as long as you wish.

[Bored chemist]

So do you claim that when electron see a nearby proton they merge into Hydrogen just by using their internal magnetic field?

No.
You were the one who made up tosh about magnetism.
They have opposite electrical charges so they attract.
When they "join up" your get light.
That's how this sort of welder works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hydrogen_welding

But that's real so you will presumably ignore it.

What about a request for external Electromagnetic field or pressure?

There isn't one.
You made that up.

How can you ignore the great meaning of a supernova form the far end stars?

The early universe didn't have a "far end", or any stars.

So, based on the BBT their age is quite close to the recombination era age.

No.
That's nonsense.
The recombination ear is long before any stars were at the start of their lives, never mind the ends of them.
You are talking unscientific nonsense.

So, how any one which consider himself as scientists could believe that somehow a Hydrogen Atoms could be created from the BBT energy without real source of electromagnetic energy  transformation.
Sorry -  the whole BBT is based on fiction and non realistic wishful list.

That is nonsense.
It's not what any scientist thinks.
It's just stuff you made up.

new stars and new galaxies are created constantly.

And that's where you break the laws of physics.
You can't just ignore the conservation laws.

Therefore, our Universe would live forever and by average it would carry that 2.7K CMBR forever and ever.

No.
Not according to actual science.
If your idea worked then since a lot of the matter in the universe is in stars, the average temperature of the universe would be close to the temperature of stars.
About ten thousand times hotter than the CMBR.

If that is correct then

... it isn't.

The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that  there is no space expansion in our Universe.

The rules of physics, and experimental observations show that the universe is expanding and that supernovae exist.
There is no contradiction there. It's just stuff you made up.

Any scientist which reject the real meaning of the supernova and accept the unrealistic idea of expansion in space should be considered as BBT scientist.

No, they should be considered a scientist.
rather than, for example, someone who says that welders and arc lamps do not work, who should not be considered a scientist.

No, we should share the same job for real science!!!

Yes we should, and your part of that job is to provide the extraordinary evidence that you would need to back up your claim.

You can start now if you like.

First you have to explain why someone who doesn't know anything about science is right while all the actual scientists are wrong.

That's the really silly thing here.
You keep arguing as if it is just me who disagrees with you when, in fact, you are the only one "on your side" and everybody else knows you are wrong.

Then you have to explain why, even though it breaks the laws of physics, your idea is right.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:24:27
Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
All 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, not 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 Yesterday at 19:56:38
The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that there is no space expansion in our Universe.

The rules of physics, and experimental observations show that the universe is expanding and that supernovae exist.
There is no contradiction there. It's just stuff you made up.

Let me start with this issue

Supernova!!!
In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1000%2B0216
SN 1000+0216 was an extremely remote superluminous supernova (SLSN),
The distance (redshift) to this supernova z=3.8993 ± 0.0074 makes it the most distant supernova observed as of 2012.

So, we have a supernova with redshift of z=3.8993

The question is - at what distance this supernova is located.
As a reference let me use the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Quasar
The quasar lies at redshift z = 1.41 (8.7 billion ly),

So, if z=1.4 represents a distance of almost 9 BLY, it is clear that a redshift of almost 4 should represent a distance above 10 BLY.
That distance actually represents an age of above 10By.
At that time the Universe was still quite compact.

Our scientists claim that the recombination Era took place about 13,4 By ago.
Hence, if we assume that the age of that Supernova is over than 10 BLY we can assume that took place only about 3 By after the recombination era.
Conclusion:
If our scientists insist that due to the expansion in space, the radiation from the recombination Era could stay with us almost forever, then the radiation from a supernova which took place at still relativity early Universe (10BY ago) should also stay with us for very long time due to the same expansion in space
However, that isn't the case.
All the supernovas at any distance/age seem to be very similar.
So, how could it be that the "The rules of physics" doesn't work at the same way on any sort of radiation from the early Universe?
How could it be that the radiation from the early universe supernova (10Byago) couldn't stay longer due to the same expansion in space (with same rules of physics) which holds the recombination Era radiation almost forever?
Why do you set your "rules of physics" ONLY where you need it and totally ignore the impact of the same rules of physics on other radiations?

This is solid evidence that there is no expansion in our Universe!!!

If you still disagree with that - you prove that your "rules of physics" is all about science imagination and you really don't care about real science.

[Bored chemist]

Your latest mistake is to assume that the expansion has been constant over time.
That's not what the evidence says. So your whole post is based on nonsense.
If you learned some science, you could avoid doing that.

More importantly...
You say

we have a supernova with redshift of z=3.8993

And then you say

All the supernovas at any distance/age seem to be very similar.

Which is plainly wrong.
If you red-shift something by a factor of nearly 4 it does not look the same.
That's how you know it has been red shifted.

So, how could it be that the "The rules of physics" doesn't work at the same way on any sort of radiation from the early Universe?

They do.
The recombination radiation has been red shifted and the supernova radiation has been red shifted (by a factor of about 3..
It does "work the same way", but you don't understand the system well enough to see that.



Do you think anyone actually agrees with your idea that the laws of physics don't actually work?

Then you have to explain why, even though it breaks the laws of physics, your idea is right.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/11/2020 20:18:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:24:27
Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
All 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, not my job to prove that conventional science is right.

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