[Kryptid]

So, I really can't understand how you try to give us an explanation for a universe which you don't know its size.
If you don't know its size - your theory is just irrelevant!!!

Then your explanation must be irrelevant too, since you also don't know the size of the Universe. You have no way of measuring its true size.

I didn't get an answer for the source of that infinite energy that is requested to that kind of Big Bang.

Whoever said that the energy was infinite? Your argument is like saying that we can't know that a bomb exploded because we don't know who made the bomb. That's a non-sequitur.

You are using this thermodynamics law in order to disqualify the Theory-D, while you give yourself a waiver for the BBT theory.

The Big Bang theory doesn't require any violation of thermodynamic laws. There is no reason that the energy and mass present at the Big Bang should be any different than the amount present in the modern Universe.

Why do you insist that the first thermodynamics law should not work at the excretion disc although it is clear that there is so much extra energy there

Because "mass" and "matter" are not the same thing. Sure, you can create new subatomic particles, but you can't increase the total mass/energy of the system unless you get some mass/energy from an outside source. The creation of new subatomic particles in a particle accelerator consumes energy from power plants. The total mass and energy before and after the particle collisions is the same. The total mass/energy of the black hole/accretion disk system cannot increase if mass/energy isn't coming in from outside.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Then your explanation must be irrelevant too, since you also don't know the size of the Universe. You have no way of measuring its true size

Yes, I know
The Universe is infinite!!!
I can prove it.
So, theory-D gives an explanation for infinite Universe

Sure, you can create new subatomic particles,

Thanks!!!
So, do you agree that the excretion disc can create subatomic particles as quarks?
If so, that's all I need

The Big Bang theory doesn't require any violation of thermodynamic laws. There is no reason that the energy and mass present at the Big Bang should be any different than the amount present in the modern Universe.

1. If all the energy and mass of the Universe (Finite or infinite) was there before the Big bang, then do you agree that the Universe was already there before the Big Bang? If so, why we don't add that time to the Universe age?
2. Do you agree that the Big bang activity is based on energy, and it also had consumed some portion of the available energy that existed in the Universe before that bang?
As you claim that there is no violation in thermodynamics - so do you agree that the Big bang had reduced the total energy of the Universe? Do you have an idea by what factor?
3. If the Universe was already there, and the BB just reduced the total energy of the Universe, so would you kindly explain the benefit of that bang? Why do we need it?
4. I still don't understand why don't we start the BBT theory when there was no mass/energy in the Universe, or at least when it was with some mass/energy. What is the benefit of theory if it starts when we already have everything?
For example, Theory-D starts when there is only one BH in the whole Universe. This one BH sets the whole Infinite Universe.

[Halc]

A theory for a Universe with a radius of 13.8 BLY can't be the same as for an infinite Universe.

Not true.  It might depend on one's definition of 'universe'.  One definition is everything inside the Hubble sphere, which is to say everything that exists in our inertial reference frame.  That size is known, and yes, it is 13.8 BLY.  Another definition bounds the universe at the event horizon, which is a bit further out, or the theoretically observable universe, which is quite larger.  Still other definitions consider locations beyond that.  All of them are valid definitions under big bang theory, although possibly not under steady state theory.

If I recall it correctly, when the BBT Idea came to our life, our scientists were quite sure that what we see is what we have. So, the Universe was quite compact.

Even more compact in pre-Copernican days.  Yes, the extent of 'all there is' seems to always be growing.  The universe certainly got bigger if Hilbert space is considered part of it, but the size of Hilbert space isn't measured in light years.

Therefore, the idea was that the big bang took place at a singular location.

The theory does not posit this.  This is a strawman representation.  Do not presume to state details of a theory you clearly have no intention of understanding.

At the first step they have found that the size of the observable universe is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
"The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years"
After this discovery they have changed the BBT.

How so?  The theory did not specify a size of the observable universe before it was computed, and the observable universe is not the universe except when 'universe' is defined that way.  But the theory does say that what is now that observable universe was arbitrarily small once.

However, now some of our scientists start to understand that the Universe might be infinite.
So, how can you adjust a theory for compact Universe to infinite universe?

The observable part is unchanged by whether or not the universe (obviously defined here as more than the parts with which we can interact) is finite or not.  Even then, it really depends on how one might go about defining said size.  Time seems to have no end (except under big-rip or big-crunch theories, only the former of which might be plausible), and so the universe is infinite if measured in that direction.  Size/distance is not a defined concept outside of special relativity, and our universe does not conform to the special conditions that make SR special.  So one must be more specific about what is being measured.

One option is to claim:

If the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?), then there is nowhere in that small super-hot space that isn't 'banging'.  The theory does not posit that a bang happened at one point and stuff subsequently expanded into existing space.  The event is indefinite compression of all of space itself.

However, that answer is based on "If the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?)"

Yes.  The two are different things, like the difference between an arbitrarily large finite number and infinity.

The big bang theory does not posit a bang happening somewhere in infinite space.  It concerns all of space (everywhere) being not very much and expanding from there, as it is still doing.

So, now the idea is that the Big Bang took place at the same moment in the whole infinite space.

That was not said.

However, I assume that you understand that this idea could kill down the BBT before we even we start our discussion, as there is no way to cool down the temp of infinite space.

Untrue.  You could double the size of it and reduce the temperature by a factor of 8.  Charles' law.

What is the meaning of increasing an infinity space to infinity space?

If you double the size, things that were 1 meter apart are now 2 meters apart, exactly as we observe.

Why it is not relevant?

Read my replies that you edited out.

Why you do not want to discuss about it?

I didn't say I didn't want to discuss it.  I just said the BBT doesn't discuss it.  The theory concerns other things.  Remember Kryptid talking about why apples are red?  Read that again.

If our scientists can't give the answer for the time before the BBT than how is responsible for that time?

Nobody said scientists give no answers for that.  But the BBT doesn't, since it is not a theory concerning 'before the big bang'.  BBT is actually a very simple theory in principle, making a simple conclusion from a simple observation.

I also didn't get yet an answer how the thermodynamics law works at the BBT.

Kryptid has answered this repeatedly.  BBT posits no change in mass energy between the time of the big bang and now.  That means it does not contradict thermodynamic law.  Your theory asserts a direct contradiction with it, and also asserts that the laws are valid, thus your theory is immediately self contradictory.

Just based on this data, do you agree that the magnetic power has an ULTRA HIGH energy force?

Energy and force (and power for that matter) are all different things, so I cannot agree to a nonsensical statement.  It may not be ultra high force at all.  It takes considerably less force to accelerate a subatomic particle to 0.8c than it takes to lift my pint of beer, something I don't consider to be on the 'ultra-high' end of the force scale.

Why do you insist that the first thermodynamics law should not work at the excretion disc

Because you asserted that it doesn't.

although it is clear that there is so much extra energy there

Energy is energy.  There is not a special kind that is 'extra'.  You posit new energy/mass coming from a closed system, which violates thermodynamic law.

how can you claim that an energy ratio of 1 to 10^100 is not good enough to form one single quark.

Nobody claimed that.  We said it probably happens. The creation of a quark takes one quark of mass away from the everything-else that made it.  There is no net gain by this process.  As long as the theory doesn't posit a net gain, there is no violation.

[Kryptid]

The Universe is infinite!!!
I can prove it.

Please do so.

So, do you agree that the excretion disc can create subatomic particles as quarks?

I don't know if it can create quarks specifically or not. I know that there are supernova models where electrons and positrons can be created inside of stars at immense temperatures (pair-production supernova). Maybe quarks can be created too, but you'd probably need much higher temperatures (because they are more massive than electrons). If you do end up with quark creation, you must also create antiquarks at the same time in order to satisfy conservation laws. So then you'd end up with the issue of how to keep those quarks and antiquarks from recombining and annihilating.

However, the creation of those particles does not decrease or increase the amount of energy or mass present in the system.

1. If all the energy and mass of the Universe (Finite or infinite) was there before the Big bang, then do you agree that the Universe was already there before the Big Bang? If so, why we don't add that time to the Universe age?

Because we don't know how long that time period is.

2. Do you agree that the Big bang activity is based on energy, and it also had consumed some portion of the available energy that existed in the Universe before that bang?

How can it consume energy? The energy can't disappear. It has to be there at all points in the process. Otherwise, the first law is violated.

As you claim that there is no violation in thermodynamics - so do you agree that the Big bang had reduced the total energy of the Universe? Do you have an idea by what factor?

The Big Bang did not decrease the total energy of the Universe. That itself would violate the first law. The energy has to remain constant. The form that the energy takes can change (from photons into electrons and positrons, for example), but the amount must not change.

3. If the Universe was already there, and the BB just reduced the total energy of the Universe, so would you kindly explain the benefit of that bang? Why do we need it?

The Big Bang didn't reduce the Universe's energy. Whether or not it was "beneficial" or whether it was "needed" for anything is irrelevant to whether or not it happened.

4. I still don't understand why don't we start the BBT theory when there was no mass/energy in the Universe

Whoever said there was ever a point in the past when there was no mass or energy in the Universe? That would violate the first law.

What is the benefit of theory if it starts when we already have everything?

We didn't have everything. We didn't have galaxies, stars, planets or living things back then.

For example, Theory-D starts when there is only one BH in the whole Universe. This one BH sets the whole Infinite Universe.

Then that black hole had better have had all of the mass/energy in the entire Universe or else you're breaking the first law.

[Kryptid]

Only if the total now is nonzero, a debated thing.

Perhaps the better thing to say would then be, "It isn't any different now than it was then".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Universe is infinite!!!
I can prove it.

Please do so.

With pleasure!.
The evidence is in the CMB:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"The cosmic microwave background radiation is an emission of uniform, black body thermal energy coming from all parts of the sky."
"The color temperature of the ensemble of decoupled photons has continued to diminish ever since; now down to 2.7260±0.0013 K,[4] it will continue to drop as the universe expands."
So, let's try to understand the real meaning of the CMB on our Universe:
The radiation is coming from "all parts of the sky" -So the same radiation at the same amplitude is coming from any direction.
Let's start by the assumption that the Universe has a ball shape and it is limited in its size (Universe radius - Ru).
So, if the Universe is finite, it is quite clear that in order to get the same radiation from any direction we have to be at the center of this universe, or close enough to the center.
1. Let's verify the statistical chance for that:
In order to do so, let's divide Ru into 1000 segments and see what is the chance that we are located at one of that segments which are located at the center (or close enough to the center) of that Universe ball shape.
So,
R1 = Ru/1000
So, the total volume of the Universe based on R1 is:
Vu= f of Ru^3 = f of (1000R1)^3 = 10^9 R1^3
So the chance to be exactly at the center is 1 to 10^9.
What is the chance that we are located at the most outwards segment (999 to 1000)?
The Volume is:
V(last segment) = V(Ru) - V(Ru -R1) =
f of (1000R1)^3 - ((1000-1)R1)^3= 1000^3 R1^3 - 999^3 R1^3 = 2,997,001 R1^3
So, while the chance to be in the center is 1 to 10^9, the chance to be at the most outwards segment is 2,997,001 to 10^9
Therefore our chance to be at the most outwards envelop of the universe is greater by  2,997,001 than the chance to be at the center.
Let's try to verify what is the chance to be located at the segments between (0 to 500)R1. (Half of the total radius of the Universe)
V(r=500) = f of (500R1)^3 = 0.125 * 10^3 R1^3
Hence, the chance to be at any segment between (0 - 500) R1 is only 0.125 while the chance to be at any segment between (500 -1000)R1 is 0.875
Let's try to find the radius which represents the middle of the volume?
Vu = 10^9 R1^3
Vu/2 = 0.5 10^9 R1^3
If we choose R = 800R1
V = 0.512 10^9 R1^3.
Therefore,
Half of the whole volume is located between (0 to 800) R1
While the other half is located between (800 to 1000) R1.
Conclusion:
Our chance to be at the center or close to the center of the ball shape universe is very minimal.
It is clear that from statistical point of view, we have higher chance to be at the segment from (500 - 1000)R1 comparing to  any other segment at the (0 -500)R1
This proves that if the Universe was finite, we had to receive different radiation amplitude from different directions.
As we get exactly the same amplitude, it proves that the Universe is infinite by definition. Only at infinite universe there is no meaning where we exactly located in the Universe. Any infinite radius from one side is equal to infinite radius from the other side.
2. There is also an issue of the Black body radiation which proves that the Universe is infinite.
However, let's see if it is needed.
3. With regards to the 2.7260±0.0013 K amplitude:
It is stated: "it will continue to drop as the universe expands". That is a fatal error.
First, the Universe is not expanding, only the galaxies.
Second, for any far away galaxies that are leaving our observable Universe, new galaxies will be born. So, the total density of mass in our observable universe (or at any aria in the infinite Universe) will stay the same
Hence, this amplitude is going to stay with us forever and ever as our universe is infinite in its size and infinite in its age.

What kind of engineering are your teams involved in?  I'm an engineer myself, not a scientist.

Electronics (Mainly Communications and computing - I was leading the technical support for Intel & AMD in my aria).

[Halc]

The Universe is infinite!!!
I can prove it.

Please do so.

With pleasure!.
The evidence is in the CMB:
...
The radiation is coming from "all parts of the sky" -So the same radiation at the same amplitude is coming from any direction.
Let's start by the assumption that the Universe has a ball shape and it is limited in its size (Universe radius - Ru).

Your approach is actually pretty good, but an assumption of a 3D ball shape with a center is unrealistic.  It assumes that the universe is expanding from a central location into existing space, not that space itself is expanding.  A finite universe would be a limited size hypersphere which has no edge and no center just like the surface of an expanding balloon has limited area and yet has no edges or center on its surface.
You seem to be describing a situation with an edge where there is stuff only on one side and emptiness on the other.

So, if the Universe is finite, it is quite clear that in order to get the same radiation from any direction we have to be at the center of this universe, or close enough to the center.
1. Let's verify the statistical chance for that:
In order to do so, let's divide Ru into 1000 segments and see what is the chance that we are located at one of that segments which are located at the center (or close enough to the center) of that Universe ball shape.
So,
R1 = Ru/1000

R1 is about 46 billion light years (size of visible universe).  Yes, if there was an edge and it was closer than that, we'd see the anomaly in the CMB.

So, the total volume of the Universe based on R1 is:
Vu= f of Ru^3 = f of (1000R1)^3 = 10^9 R1^3
So the chance to be exactly at the center is 1 to 10^9.
What is the chance that we are located at the most outwards segment (999 to 1000)?
The Volume is:
V(last segment) = V(Ru) - V(Ru -R1) =
f of (1000R1)^3 - ((1000-1)R1)^3= 1000^3 R1^3 - 999^3 R1^3 = 2,997,001 R1^3
So, while the chance to be in the center is 1 to 10^9, the chance to be at the most outwards segment is 2,997,001 to 10^9
Therefore our chance to be at the most outwards envelop of the universe is greater by  2,997,001 than the chance to be at the center.

The math is off, but close enough.  The odds of being not at the edge is about 997 to 3 by this calculation.  So most likely we're neither at the edge nor the exact center.  But it seems that only at the edge would the CMB definitely not be isotropic.

Therefore,
Half of the whole volume is located between (0 to 800) R1
While the other half is located between (800 to 1000) R1.
Conclusion:
Our chance to be at the center or close to the center of the ball shape universe is very minimal.
It is clear that from statistical point of view, we have higher chance to be at the segment from (500 - 1000)R1 comparing to  any other segment at the (0 -500)R1
This proves that if the Universe was finite, we had to receive different radiation amplitude from different directions.

Wait, where did 'different radiation amplitude' suddenly come from?  None of the proof made any mention of why that must be non-isotropic from any of these non-edge volumes.  If I sample a random small spherical volume centered somewhere in a large ball of plastic, I can tell by the flat spot if I managed to sample a location right at the edge, but all the other ones will look identical.

If I sample a random small circle on the surface of a finite area balloon, they'll all look identical, without any probability about it.

You seem to have demonstrated that given
p1) a 3D Euclidean model of the universe (no spacetime) and where
p2) the CMB would taper off uniformly from center to edges and where
p3) the ratio of Ru to R1 is small
c1) that we would probably notice non-isotropy of the CMB.

That is three unlikely premises.  P2 is not unreasonable, but you have proof of none of them, so they're premises, and I agree that the conclusion stands if all three of these premises are true.

P1 corresponds to no accepted cosmological model of the universe.  It involves things moving faster than light through space.
P3 assumes a small Ru.  If it is large but still finite, the CMB variance from various directions might vary (if P2 holds), but below our ability to measure.  As it is, it does vary, being more red shifted in one direction and blue shifted in the other, but that's due to our velocity relative to the mean velocity of everything around us.

Argument by stats is not a proof.  It results in a probability of something being true, but not proof.  I accept such probabilistic evidence, but I don't accept the premises. The accepted models of a finite universe don't look like what you're describing.  They're either non-euclidean, or an Ru in line with eternal inflation theory where there are finite edges because we're using a foliation where the universe is young and still 'banging' presently.

Second, for any far away galaxies that are leaving our observable Universe, new galaxies will be born. So, the total density of mass in our observable universe (or at any aria in the infinite Universe) will stay the same

This violates thermodynamic law.  A system (OU) that is losing mass should get lower and lower in mass unless there is a balance of mass coming in.

What kind of engineering are your teams involved in?  I'm an engineer myself, not a scientist.

Electronics (Mainly Communications and computing - I was leading the technical support for Intel & AMD in my aria).

Tech support.  OK.  You don't design the bridges, but you support those that have trouble with their bridges.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

R1 is about 46 billion light years (size of visible universe).  Yes, if there was an edge and it was closer than that, we'd see the anomaly in the CMB.

You can use any size of Universe.
If Ru = 46 Billion LY
The total size of the Universe is as big as the Observable Universe
R1 = Ru/1000 = 46 Million LY
This is the Length of each segment.

The odds of being not at the edge is about 997 to 3 by this calculation.  So most likely we're neither at the edge nor the exact center.  But it seems that only at the edge would the CMB definitely not be isotropic.

It seems to me that you have missed the point.
If the radius of the whole Universe is 46 BLY, let's divide it into two sections:
The odds of being in at the range of 0 to 46/2= 32BLY  is only 0.125.
The odds of being in at the range of 32 BLY to 46BLY is 0.875.
Therefore, our chance to be at the radius of 32BLY to 46BLY is higher than the chance to be at the 0 to 32BLY.
So, assuming that we will be located at 32BLY from the center than:
In one direction to the edge of the Universe it will be at a distance of 64 +32 = 96BLY, while in the other side it will only be 32 BLY.
Therefore, the ratio between one side to the other side is 1 to 3 (32 vs 96)
I hope that you agree that in this case, the CMB definitely not be isotropic.
So, we don't need to be exactly at the edge in order to get that none isotropic radiation.

You have selected R1 = 46BLY.
So, in this case
Ru = 46,000BLY
Hence, it this example the real Universe is 1000 time the observable Universe:
Even for this case:
The chance to be at a radius of 0 to 32,000BLY is 0.125
While the chance to be at 32,000BLY to 64,000BLY is 0.8125.
Therefore, even in a really big universe, it is expected to get CMB which is not be isotropic.
Therefore, just if the Universe is infinite we will get a perfect isotropic radiation.

Argument by stats is not a proof.  It results in a probability of something being true, but not proof.  I accept such probabilistic evidence, but I don't accept the premises. The accepted models of a finite universe don't look like what you're describing.  They're either non-euclidean, or an Ru in line with eternal inflation theory where there are finite edges because we're using a foliation where the universe is young and still 'banging' presently.

Sorry - I don't understand why do you reject that kind of statistical calculation.

[Halc]

If Ru = 46 Billion LY
The total size of the Universe is as big as the Observable Universe
R1 = Ru/1000 = 46 Million LY

We can see much further than 46 MLY.  R1 is the CMB, which comes from material that is 'now' close to 45 BLY away.  If the universe is 3D and that size, then we'd need to be at the exact center for there to be a CMB in all directions.

The odds of being not at the edge is about 997 to 3 by this calculation.  So most likely we're neither at the edge nor the exact center.  But it seems that only at the edge would the CMB definitely not be isotropic.

It seems to me that you have missed the point.
If the radius of the whole Universe is 46 BLY,

Your example had it at 1000 times that figure.  My 997 to 3 calculation assumed that size.

let's divide it into two sections:
The odds of being in at the range of 0 to 46/2= 32BLY  is only 0.125.
The odds of being in at the range of 32 BLY to 46BLY is 0.875.
Therefore, our chance to be at the radius of 32BLY to 46BLY is higher than the chance to be at the 0 to 32BLY.

If the universe is only 46 BLY in radius, then all those places save just a few very near the center would 'see' the edge.  Dividing it in regions like that doesn't change that.  Yes, this is reasonable evidence that the universe is at least larger than the visible universe.

So, assuming that we will be located at 32BLY from the center than:
In one direction to the edge of the Universe it will be at a distance of 64 +32 = 96BLY, while in the other side it will only be 32 BLY.

Where did radius suddenly change to 64?  OK, if the radius was that, and we're 32 BLY from the edge, we'd see the edge since we can see that far, so to speak.

Therefore, the ratio between one side to the other side is 1 to 3 (32 vs 96)
I hope that you agree that in this case, the CMB definitely not be isotropic.
So, we don't need to be exactly at the edge in order to get that none isotropic radiation.

If you're in sight of the edge, sure, the CMB would not be on that side.  For a much larger radius, the odds of being withing 46 BLY is much much smaller.  997 to 3 in your original example, and even lower odds if it's bigger.

You have selected R1 = 46BLY.

I didn't select that.  The CMB is 'now' ~45 BLY away, but stuff a little further away might have had a causal effect on us, even if not via light.  So 46.  That's what observable universe means.

So, in this case
Ru = 46,000BLY
Hence, it this example the real Universe is 1000 time the observable Universe:

Yes, that's the example I was working with, and I thought you were using.

Even for this case:
The chance to be at a radius of 0 to 32,000BLY is 0.125

Who cares?  You can't see the edge from that distance.  I was computing the chance of being within sight of the edge.

While the chance to be at 32,000BLY to 64,000BLY is 0.8125.
Therefore, even in a really big universe, it is expected to get CMB which is not be isotropic.

So you're asserting that the universe appears isotropic only when less than half way to the edge?  That kind of is grouped under premise 2, and is not really a new premise. How might you back up this claim here? The 'proof' is only as strong as the list of premises.

Therefore, just if the Universe is infinite we will get a perfect isotropic radiation.

Well it isn't perfect, so by your logic, the universe isn't infinite.

Argument by stats is not a proof.  It results in a probability of something being true, but not proof.  I accept such probabilistic evidence, but I don't accept the premises.

Sorry - I don't understand why do you reject that kind of statistical calculation.

I just said I accepted that part.  Try to read more carefully.  Such methods are a valid form of argument, but I'm just noting that it doesn't constitute proof.  I've gone through an awful lot of days, each without dying, so does this prove that I will live forever?  No, but it demonstrates that is is dang probable that I'll still be here tomorrow.

If you read further, I said I had issues with your premises, which do not correspond to any accepted model of a finite universe.  That makes the argument a strawman one.

[Kryptid]

Your "proof" isn't proof at all, because other models can also explain isotropy without invoking an infinite Universe: the Big Bang theory itself is one of them. Another model that would explain isotropy would be a hyperspherical universe. As an analogy, imagine a sphere where 2-dimensional creatures live embedded in its surface. They can't perceive the 3-dimensional shape of their world, only the 2-dimensional surface they reside inside of. If this surface was evenly filled with radiation, then that radiation would look isotropic regardless of where the observer stands. All locations inside of the sphere's surface are equal. If we are living in the "surface" of a hypersphere, the same would be true for our own observations even though the hyperspherical universe has a limited size.

Shell theorem should make radiation look isotropic even if your model of a finite, spherical universe is used. Shell theorem is normally used to describe gravity, but it should work here too because radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/sphshell2.html

The edges of this universe would have to be perfectly reflecting (since light simply vanishing at that edge would violate conservation of energy). Let's assume that we are not at the center of the sphere, but closer to one side. Although you would expect that edge to look brighter to us because we are closer to it, there is more total "edge" further away from us on the other side. It all cancels out when you do that math. So the radiation still looks isotropic even if you are far from the center.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Shell theorem should make radiation look isotropic even if your model of a finite, spherical universe is used. Shell theorem is normally used to describe gravity, but it should work here too because radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Thanks for the great example.
Unfortunately, you have missed the key point in this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
"A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force within the object varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass."
It is stated clearly that: "the gravitational force within the object varies linearly with distance from the centre,"
So, on the object we get different forces from different directions. However, the net force is zero.
This isn't our case. We do not measure the net radiation. We measure the CMB level from each direction - isotropic:
By Google - isotropic
Having a physical property that has the same value when measured in different directions.
So, If we combined the measured CMB from all directions we might find that the total is Zero (as the idea of the Shell theorem). But this is not our target.
Actually the Shell theorem proves that the gravity forces are not isotropic. as it is stated: "varies linearly with distance from the centre".
Therefore, this theory proves my case.
If the universe is finite (at any size) than by definition we wouldn't get an isotropic CMB. (Unless we will be exactly at the center or close to the center). However, I have proved that the chance for that is very minimal.
Hence, it is so clear to me that as the CMB is isotropic the universe must be infinite.
I really can't understand why do you both reject this simple idea.

If you're in sight of the edge, sure, the CMB would not be on that side.

Thanks
So, you agree that if we were close enough to the edge of a finite Universe the CMB shouldn't be isotropic.
But how close?

So you're asserting that the universe appears isotropic only when less than half way to the edge?

I have found that the chance to be half way to the edge is 0.875.

The CMB value is very accurate: 2.72548±0.00057 K.[4]
Therefore, the universe appears isotropic only if we are at the most center of the finite Universe or close enough to its center.
The chance for that in very minimal.
Hence, our Universe must be infinity.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Big Bang did not create mass or energy. It represented an extreme expansion of space that mass and energy already existed in

So, the Big Bang doesn't give any answer for the creation of the mass and energy in our Universe.
Not even one gram of mass or extra energy!
Therefore, do you agree that the BBT is only a theory of transformation?
How our scientists could bypass that key element in the theory of creation our Universe.
They have to answer how the total mass and energy had been created in our universe - Finite or Infinite!
They can't say - Sorry it isn't our job!
Who is going to take care on that???

I have tried to find by Google: "How the universe was created?"
There are many explanations about it - all of them are based on the BBT.
For example:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140812-how-was-the-universe-created
"So how was this unimaginably giant Universe created?"
"Around 13.8 billion years ago, all the matter in the Universe emerged from a single, minute point, or singularity, in a violent burst."
This is misleading information.
Our scientists actually mislead all the people in our planet about the BBT, as it does not deal with the most important part of the creation - Mass and Energy.
Hence, how can they call it a theory of "creation?"
They must call the BBT a theory of "transformation"!!!
Do you agree with that?
If so, please advise them to look for a real theory of creation as Theory-D.

[Halc]

Therefore, this theory proves my case.
If the universe is finite (at any size) than by definition we wouldn't get an isotropic CMB.

Do you have any idea what the words 'by definition' mean?  You use the phrase a lot, and always inappropriately, which doesn't help anybody's opinion of your intelligence.  The definition of a finite universe is not 'one without an isotropic CMB'.

So, you agree that if we were close enough to the edge of a finite Universe the CMB shouldn't be isotropic.
But how close?

I don't even agree with the former.  I can think of models where there is an edge and we are right at it, and the CMB still isotropic.  For instance, suppose the universe is a computer simulation of a finite space, whose primary purpose is to simulate something that is naturally put at the center.  The size need only be a finite size since anything outside that radius has no effect on the preferred location.  Thus we would be part of the more probable 'not at the center places' and would eventually find ourselves at the edge, which we would not detect even when we're 100000 km from it.  The CMB would be isotropic.  The moon might already be gone because it has passed out of the universe, but we would not see its absence since it is impossible to see the present.

So you ask how far we can theoretically see, and there are several answers to that.  I can see zero distance into the present.  The material of the CMB that we see now is currently 45 BLY away, but that doesn't mean I can see 45 BLY.  The CMB material that we measure was perhaps 1.1 million proper light years away from the location that Earth would one day occupy, when it emitted the light we see now.  That's not very far at all.  I see lots of things that were further away from 'here' when they emitted the light we see now, and yet one cannot see beyond the CMB.  Such are the things that need to be clarified when discussing distances in expanding and relativistic space.
So how close you need to be to the edge to see it depends heavily on the model you're using, and also depends on the way you measure distance.
The model you seem to be using is not supported by anybody, so you're disproving a strawman model.  Try arguing against the hypersphere model that both Kryptid and I mentioned.  That one is nice and finite and completely isotropic, and thus illustrates (by counterexample) that the CMB is not evidence against a finite universe at all.

So you're asserting that the universe appears isotropic only when less than half way to the edge?

I have found that the chance to be half way to the edge is 0.875.

The CMB value is very accurate: 2.72548±0.00057 K.[4]
Therefore, the universe appears isotropic only if we are at the most center of the finite Universe or close enough to its center.
The chance for that in very minimal.
Hence, our Universe must be infinity.

I want to point out here that you repeated a lot of stuff you've said in prior posts, but you totally did not answer the question I asked. That question doesn't matter since it concerns your strawman universe, but I just posted this to show how you evade questions. You should quit the armchair science and go into politics. You have the knack for that.

So, the Big Bang doesn't give any answer for the creation of the mass and energy in our Universe.
Not even one gram of mass or extra energy!
Therefore, do you agree that the BBT is only a theory of transformation?

It describes how the universe got the way it is now from the way it proposes the universe to have been back then.  That's a transformation of sorts I guess, so I don't disagree with this.

They can't say - Sorry it isn't our job!
Who is going to take care on that???

Philosophers for one.  It's their job after all.

I have tried to find by Google: "How the universe was created?"
There are many explanations about it - all of them are based on the BBT.

They're not all BBT links.

This is misleading information.

Google misinterpreted your question and linked sites that say how galaxies and such were created from the early state, not how the universe itself was created.  Go down the list.  There are creation suggestions if you look for them.
I did the search and 5th one down is Stephen Hawking (a scientist) doing philosophy:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
That mentions the big bang at some point, but doesn't suggest it as an explanation of how the universe comes to exist.  I have opinions on the topic myself, but I don't think I could explain it to you.  Short story: I favor the relational interpretation of QM which handily solves the problem.

Our scientists actually mislead all the people in our planet about the BBT, as it does not deal with the most important part of the creation - Mass and Energy.
Hence, how can they call it a theory of "creation?"

I don't think anyone bills it as a theory of creation. Go to church to hear that one.

If so, please advise them to look for a real theory of creation as Theory-D.

An idea that blatantly say X is true and false at the same time?  That's trivially falsified.

[Kryptid]

Unfortunately, you have missed the key point in this article

The part that you quoted is about a "solid sphere of uniform density" not a "hollow sphere". Gravity varies linearly from the center of a solid sphere, whereas there is no net force at all inside of a hollow sphere.

So, the Big Bang doesn't give any answer for the creation of the mass and energy in our Universe.

No. It was never supposed to.

Not even one gram of mass or extra energy!

No, because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Therefore, do you agree that the BBT is only a theory of transformation?

Transformation and expansion, yes.

How our scientists could bypass that key element in the theory of creation our Universe.

Every single theory in existence that isn't about the origin of matter and energy are bypassing that. That isn't something unique to the Big Bang theory.

They have to answer how the total mass and energy had been created in our universe - Finite or Infinite!

Nobody has to answer anything, and it's not like you know where mass and energy ultimately came from either.

They can't say - Sorry it isn't our job!

They absolutely can say that. If their profession isn't about deducing the origins of matter and energy, they have no obligation to it.

Who is going to take care on that???

People have been wondering for ages, but until we figure out a way to perform the right kind of experiment, we may never know.

Hence, how can they call it a theory of "creation?"
They must call the BBT a theory of "transformation"!!!
Do you agree with that?

That depends on how you define the word "creation". A piece of art is often called a creation even though the matter and energy that make up the art piece were not created by the artist.

If so, please advise them to look for a real theory of creation as Theory-D.

(1) You can't call your idea a theory until it has been scientifically tested.
(2) How does your idea explain the existence of mass and energy? Be careful not to let your explanation violate the first law of thermodynamics.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The part that you quoted is about a "solid sphere of uniform density" not a "hollow sphere". Gravity varies linearly from the center of a solid sphere, whereas there is no net force at all inside of a hollow sphere.

I have just read the article which you have offered:

Shell theorem is normally used to describe gravity, but it should work here too because radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

In the article they show clearly that from inside the sphere each point get's different force:
"The magnitude of the gravitational field that would pull a particle at point P in the x direction is the gravitational field multiplied by cos(theta) where theta is the angle adjacent to the x axis.  In this case, cos(theta)=p/sqrt(p^2+R^2)"
If we:
"Integrating the field due to each thin disc from x=-a to x=+a with respect to x, and after careful algebra, beautifully yields Newton's shell theorem."
Hence, by setting the integration on all of those different forces at different locations we get that Newton's shell theorem.
However, we are dealing with the different forces at different locations:
You actually claim that we can compare the gravity forces to radiation:"radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law)"
So, it is very clear that we should get different radiation if we won't stay at the center of this finite Universe "shell".
If you think differently - please prove it.

I can think of models where there is an edge and we are right at it, and the CMB still isotropic.

Is it real???
If we stay at the far edge of the Universe, while we see half of the sky full with galaxies and the other half without even one star, how can we still get that isotropic radiation?
I really can't understand why do you insist to claim that there is no meaning for that isotropic radiation?
I can also think on a model which proves that 1+1=0.
We can always band the reality.
But, what is our benefit with that?
Why do you totally reject the idea that the Universe is/could be infinite?
Why are you both so afraid from infinite Universe?
What is the big disaster if our Universe is Infinite?

[Kryptid]

In the article they show clearly that from inside the sphere each point get's different force:
"The magnitude of the gravitational field that would pull a particle at point P in the x direction is the gravitational field multiplied by cos(theta) where theta is the angle adjacent to the x axis.  In this case, cos(theta)=p/sqrt(p^2+R^2)"
If we:
"Integrating the field due to each thin disc from x=-a to x=+a with respect to x, and after careful algebra, beautifully yields Newton's shell theorem."
Hence, by setting the integration on all of those different forces at different locations we get that Newton's shell theorem.
However, we are dealing with the different forces at different locations:
You actually claim that we can compare the gravity forces to radiation:"radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law)"
So, it is very clear that we should get different radiation if we won't stay at the center of this finite Universe "shell".
If you think differently - please prove it.

You are still making reference to a solid sphere, not a hollow shell. If you go to the part that says "Inside a shell", then you will see what I am talking about. To quote the article, "the net gravitational forces acting on the point mass from the mass elements of the shell, outside the measurement point, cancel out."

This video reveals the same thing. Skip to 1:35 :

To quote the narrator, "So now, we have the second part of Newton's shell theorem. It states that a homogeneous spherically symmetric shell exerts no gravitational force on objects within the shell."

[Dave Lev (OP)]

To quote the narrator, "So now, we have the second part of Newton's shell theorem. It states that a homogeneous spherically symmetric shell exerts no gravitational force on objects within the shell."

Sure, I fully agree with that.
However, all it says that the sum of all the forces from all the directions is zero.
But they don't say that the forces from all the directions are the same.
They say that one direction cancel the force from the opposite direction.
So, if we take one line (left/right) we should find that the force from the left side cancel the force from the right side.
If we take another line (up/down), we should find that the force from upwards cancel the force from downwards.
However, they didn't say that the forces from Left/right are equal with the forces from up/down.
So, do you agree that there is no prove for isotropic forces in this example?
However, we discuss on isotropic radiation/forces from all directions.
Can you please prove that the gravity isn't isotropic?

If no, do you agree that at any size of finite universe with spherically symmetric shell there is no way to get isotropic radiation unless we are located at the center?
Therefore, as the chance to be at the center is virtually zero, do you finally accept the idea that our universe must be infinite in order to get that kind of isotropic CMB radiation?

[Kryptid]

However, all it says that the sum of all the forces from all the directions is zero.
But they don't say that the forces from all the directions are the same.

That is exactly what it means. If the force from any one direction was greater than the force from another direction, then there would be a net force in one direction and thus shell theorem would be wrong.

So, if we take one line (left/right) we should find that the force from the left side cancel the force from the right side.
If we take another line (up/down), we should find that the force from upwards cancel the force from downwards.
However, they didn't say that the forces from Left/right are equal with the forces from up/down.

The forces from the left and right direction are zero and the forces from the up and down direction are zero. Zero is equal to zero, so they are equal.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The forces from the left and right direction are zero and the forces from the up and down direction are zero. Zero is equal to zero, so they are equal.

Sure.
But the forces from left/right are not equal to the up down directions.
For example
If the gravity force form the left is F1 than the force from right must be also F1 (at the opposite direction)
However, the force from up could be F2 which is different from F1. However the force from down must be F2 in order to cancel the force from up.
So, if you add all the forces you get Zero.
But it is clear that from any direction we could get different forces.
Therefore, the forces are not isotropic.
Is it clear to you by now?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I understand what you're asking.  Cancelling forces (net zero) does not imply isotropy.  It wasn't the purpose of the example to demonstrate isotropy.  But the same mathematics of the shell theorem can be used to demonstrate that the force/radiation is isotropic inside a shell, and you'd realize that if you understood how the proof works and didn't just focus on the words used in the conclusion.

So, what do you want to say by that?
I hope that you accept my approval by Newton's shell theorem that our universe must be infinite in order to get that kind of isotropic CMB radiation.

Why do you totally reject the idea that the Universe is/could be infinite?

Where did I say this?

If you accept the idea that the universe is/could be infinite, then why do you continue to disapprove this idea?
What do you gain with that?