[Kryptid]

But the forces from left/right are not equal to the up down directions.

They have to be equal because you already posited a spherical Universe. There is nothing to cause the radiation coming from above you or below you to have a different intensity than the radiation coming at you from the sides.

If they weren't equal, then the microwave background would not look isotropic from any point in the Universe, not even in the middle. If the radiation coming from above you and below you was brighter than the radiation coming from your sides, this would be detectable anywhere. The fact that the radiation is observed to be isotropic means that this is not the case.

A hyperspherical universe or Big Bang universe would also explain an isotropic microwave background without having to rely on anything infinite in size. So your argument still does not work as proof.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Please quote one place where I (or Kryptid) deny that the universe could be infinite.  I'm simply denying that it must be, as you assert.

So, you still do not want to accept the idea that the Universe IS INFINITE.
You prefer to set it under "Could be" infinite, (or: "We don't know"?).
Sorry, you must know the clear answer.
Is it infinite or not?
"Could be" is nice first step but it's not good enough
I have proved that in order to get isotropic CMB radiation the universe MUST BE infinite.
If you are still denying that it "must be" infinite, then please prove it.
Please show why in a finite Universe we can still get isotropic CMB radiation - based on "shell theorem" (and only on shell theorem theory)" .
If you can't do so, would you kindly and finally write clearly that you agree that the Universe IS/MUST BE infinite!

[Halc]

So, you still do not want to accept the idea that the Universe IS INFINITE.
You prefer to set it under "Could be" infinite, (or: "We don't know"?).

I have no choice.  There is as of yet no conclusive way to falsify one or the other idea.  The CMB thing doesn't work because there are very viable finite models (the hypersphere one in particular) with perfect isotropy.

I have proved that in order to get isotropic CMB radiation the universe MUST BE infinite.

You did no such thing.  As I said, the valid finite models predict isotropy, so the observed CMB is exactly as predicted.
Your model on the other hand (besides being a violation of several principles) doesn't predict one.  If the universe started out at one place (instead of everywhere) and spread out from there, it would be finite size after finite time (due to light speed limitation) and probably wouldn't have a CMB at all.

If you are still denying that it "must be" infinite, then please prove it.

We did. We showed a model that is finite and matches observations.  That counterexample proves that a non-infinite universe is a possibility.

Please show why in a finite Universe we can still get isotropic CMB radiation - based on "shell theorem" (and only on shell theorem theory)" .

I'll let Kryptid do that.  He brought it up.  The hypersphere model is isotropic due to symmetry and the shell theorem isn't a part of the argument.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Your model on the other hand (besides being a violation of several principles) doesn't predict one.  If the universe started out at one place (instead of everywhere) and spread out from there, it would be finite size after finite time (due to light speed limitation) and probably wouldn't have a CMB at all.

My modeling/theory or any other theory (including the BBT) isn't relevant to the shape of the real Universe.
Somehow, it seems to me that you try to band the evidences in order to meet your BBT theory.
I don't think that I have more wisdom than any average scientist.
Therefore, it is quite clear to me that based on that discovery any scientist will agree that the universe must be infinite.
But you don't want to accept it as it might contradict the BBT theory.
Therefore, you prefer to set it under "could be" and look for some unrealistic modeling which proves the opposite.

Please be aware that the black body radiation in the CMB is also a clear indication for Infinity Universe.
However, I assume that any evidence that contradicts the wishful list should be rejected.
Therefore, I hope that I will not have to discuss about the black body radiation as the isotropic idea will be good enough to prove that our Universe is infinite.

I'll let Kryptid do that.  He brought it up.  The hypersphere model is isotropic due to symmetry and the shell theorem isn't a part of the argument.

Why do you claim that: "the shell theorem isn't a part of the argument."?
How can reject that kind of important law? (Is it just because it doesn't meet the requested wishful list?)

So, yes please.
Although Kryptid is in your side, I have full confidence that he will answer based on "shell theorem" real evidence and not based on wishful list.
So, I'm waiting for Kryptid to let us know if there is a possibility to get isotropic radiation at a finite Universe (at any size and at any location in the Universe) under the "shell theorem" theory

[Kryptid]

So, I'm waiting for Kryptid to let us know if there is a possibility to get isotropic radiation at a finite Universe (at any size and at any location in the Universe) under the "shell theorem" theory

I already did:

They have to be equal because you already posited a spherical Universe. There is nothing to cause the radiation coming from above you or below you to have a different intensity than the radiation coming at you from the sides.

If they weren't equal, then the microwave background would not look isotropic from any point in the Universe, not even in the middle. If the radiation coming from above you and below you was brighter than the radiation coming from your sides, this would be detectable anywhere. The fact that the radiation is observed to be isotropic means that this is not the case.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

They have to be equal because you already posited a spherical Universe. There is nothing to cause the radiation coming from above you or below you to have a different intensity than the radiation coming at you from the sides.

I disagree with you
We see clearly that the net forces are based on distances
So, if we are located at the center we have exactly the same distance to all directions.
In this case, it is clear that the forces are fully isotropic.
However, once we move from the center, there is no balance between the Up/Down distance to the Left/right distance. Therefore, it is clear that for one we might get F1 force while from the other line we can get F2.
So, I really can't understand why you insist on isotropic forces at the shell theorem.

If they weren't equal, then the microwave background would not look isotropic from any point in the Universe, not even in the middle. If the radiation coming from above you and below you was brighter than the radiation coming from your sides, this would be detectable anywhere. The fact that the radiation is observed to be isotropic means that this is not the case.

I agree with you.
They have to be equal. But that could be only if our universe is infinite or we are located at the center.
 
However, I'm not going to argue about it anymore.
Let's move to the radiation spectrum.
Our scientists have found that the CMB has the most perfect blackbody spectrum in nature ever observed.
They have also calculated a redshift of 1100 in the CMB.
Therefore, I wonder how could it be that we get the same spectrum and the same redshift from all directions while in one side we are closer to the edge (or even right at the edge) of the Universe while in the other side we are far away?
So, how do we get the same CMB spectrum, same black body radiation and the same redshift from all directions as we get closer to one edge of the finite Universe?

[Kryptid]

We see clearly that the net forces are based on distances

It isn't based only on distance, but also on the amount of mass present at those differing distances. It is the finding of shell theorem that those two factors always perfectly balance each other out inside of a uniform, spherical shell such that the forces in all directions always add up to zero. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

Therefore, it is clear that for one we might get F1 force while from the other line we can get F2.

I addressed that right here:

If they weren't equal, then the microwave background would not look isotropic from any point in the Universe, not even in the middle. If the radiation coming from above you and below you was brighter than the radiation coming from your sides, this would be detectable anywhere. The fact that the radiation is observed to be isotropic means that this is not the case.

So, how do we get the same CMB spectrum, same black body radiation and the same redshift from all directions as we get closer to one edge of the finite Universe?

Space expanding in all directions would cause an equal redshift at all locations in the Universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Space expanding in all directions would cause an equal redshift at all locations in the Universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
"the expansion rate of the universe has been measured to be H0 = 73.24 ± 1.74 (km/s)/Mpc.[14] This means that for every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the light received from that distance is cosmologically redshifted by about 73 kilometres per second (160,000 mph)."
We see clearly that the local impact of the expansion is very minimal.
Hence:
1. If our distance to the near edge is R1 and the distance to the far edge is 1000R1, do you agree that the expansion impact of 1000R1 should be higher than R1 by 1000? If so, how could it be that we should get the same redshift in both directions?
2. If we are located only one Mpc from the edge, then the impact of the expansion is only 73Km/s. How that speed can set a redshift of 1100?

[Halc]

We see clearly that the local impact of the expansion is very minimal.
Hence:
1. If our distance to the near edge is R1 and the distance to the far edge is 1000R1, do you agree that the expansion impact of 1000R1 should be higher than R1 by 1000? If so, how could it be that we should get the same redshift in both directions?

The CMB is equidistant in all directions.  It is a shell centered on us.  Any CMB light that originated closer by has already passed by us.  Any further out hasn't got here yet.  Therefore the distance to the edge, in a model that has an edge at all, has zero effect on what is seen.

2. If we are located only one Mpc from the edge, then the impact of the expansion is only 73Km/s. How that speed can set a redshift of 1100?

1100 is approximately the ratio of the temperature at the decoupling event and what we measure from this distance, which has nothing to do with things one Mpc away now.  If we're currently one Mpc from 'the edge', then material at the edge would be moving away from us at 73Km/s.  What we see in such a model depends very much on the model.  The model I described in post 378 would result in no detectable anomaly in any direction regardless of how close we were to the edge.  That's a pretty far fetched model, but so is yours.  The hypersphere model doesn't have an edge.  The eternal inflation model has an edge under certain foliations, but no observer can be near it because the universe is too young there.  The latter two models are both viable finite universe models that predict CMB isotrophy.  The post-378 one predicts it as well, but it isn't a very viable model.  It asserts that there is a preferred location in space and we're not at that location.

[Kryptid]

1. If our distance to the near edge is R1 and the distance to the far edge is 1000R1, do you agree that the expansion impact of 1000R1 should be higher than R1 by 1000? If so, how could it be that we should get the same redshift in both directions?

Since we can't see any visible boundary to the visible universe, the visible universe must have a radius of at least slightly less than R1, The visible universe represents the limits of what we can see, so anything happening more than a distance of R1 away from us simply would not be visible and therefore could not impact our observations.

2. If we are located only one Mpc from the edge, then the impact of the expansion is only 73Km/s. How that speed can set a redshift of 1100?

We're not a mere 1 mega-parsec from the edge. We are about 46 billion light-years from the edge of the visible universe, so we are at least that far from any hypothetical absolute edge of the Universe as well.

Then there is another possibility I realized. Our visible universe could represent such an incredibly small portion of a gigantic (but finite) total universe that any anisotropies in the CMB that are present are too small for us to detect with current technology. It would be like trying to measure the curvature of the Earth with a school ruler.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

1. If our distance to the near edge is R1 and the distance to the far edge is 1000R1, do you agree that the expansion impact of 1000R1 should be higher than R1 by 1000? If so, how could it be that we should get the same redshift in both directions?

Since we can't see any visible boundary to the visible universe, the visible universe must have a radius of at least slightly less than R1, The visible universe represents the limits of what we can see, so anything happening more than a distance of R1 away from us simply would not be visible and therefore could not impact our observations.

The CMB is equidistant in all directions.  It is a shell centered on us.  Any CMB light that originated closer by has already passed by us.  Any further out hasn't got here yet.  Therefore the distance to the edge, in a model that has an edge at all, has zero effect on what is seen.

Sorry, you both don't answer my question.
Space expanding
You have stated that Space expanding in all directions would cause an equal redshift at all locations in the Universe:

Space expanding in all directions would cause an equal redshift at all locations in the Universe.

I wonder how the Space expanding can set the same redsift to different distances and different velocities due to the impact of space expansion.
1. How could it be that we get exactly the same redshift value from the near edge of the universe which is R1 and from the furthest edge which is higher by 1000 times than R1 (without the impact of space expansion)?
2. If we add the impact of space expansion, that it is clear that the edge which is located 1000 times R1 from us will move even further away at higher velocities. That should even make it much more difficult to get the same redshift. So, how can you claim that the space expansion adjust them all to the same level?
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects
List of the most distant astronomical objects
We see that GN-z11 galaxy is located at a distance of 13.39   billion LY away and its redshift is only z = 11.09.
So, why we get exactly Z = 1400 in the CMB, while for a galaxy that is located at the furthest location (13.39 billion LY)  in our Universe we only get 11.9?
4. If in one side our distance to the edge is only 13.39 billion LY =R1, what do you think should be the CMB redshift?
Do you agree that the radiation amplitude of the furthest galaxy gets to our location at the minimal value (as 1/R^2).
So, if we look directly in this direction we should get radiations from all the galaxies which are located in that line. those galaxies has lower redshift but higher radiation amplitude.
Hence, we should see in the CMB (at the direction of GN-z11 galaxy) the sum of all the radiations from all the galaxies/objects that are located in this direction.
As the furthest galaxy has a minimal radiation amplitude with a redshift of 11.9, while closer galaxies with much more radiation amplitude have a lower redshift (lower even than 1), do you agree that the average redshift should actually be much lower than 11.9. (could it be 2 or even less than 1?).
If so, how could it be that we get a redshift of 1400 in the CMB in all directions? Why not 5 or 11.9?
Do you agree that this redshift value of 1400  is a real enigma for any finite Universe?

[Kryptid]

Sorry, you both don't answer my question.

Yes I did. Anything further away from us than R1 is too far away to see, so it can't impact our observations.

You have stated that Space expanding in all directions would cause an equal redshift at all locations in the Universe:

Yes, but not all radiation that we see has traveled the same distance to reach our telescopes. Radiation that has traveled further would be more redshifted because it has been moving through an expanding space for a longer period of time.

I wonder how the Space expanding can set the same redsift to different distances and different velocities due to the impact of space expansion.

There is a subtle difference that needs to be pointed out. The rate that space is expanding is the same at any given location in the Universe (as far as we can tell, anyway). So the amount of stretching that any given photon experiences over any given measure of time should be the same for every location in the Universe as well. However, what is different is that different photons are given different amounts of time to stretch because some travel further than others before reaching our telescopes (as I explained before). So the redshift we observe is greater for objects of greater distance from us.

1. How could it be that we get exactly the same redshift value from the near edge of the universe which is R1 and from the furthest edge which is higher by 1000 times than R1 (without the impact of space expansion)?

We can't see past R1 so what is happening 1,000 times further away isn't visible to us. I say that we can't see past R1 because the edge of the total Universe must be somewhere outside of the observable universe (otherwise we could detect that edge). So R1 must be at least slightly beyond the edge of the observable universe, putting R1000 just that much further beyond our observation abilities.

2. If we add the impact of space expansion, that it is clear that the edge which is located 1000 times R1 from us will move even further away at higher velocities. That should even make it much more difficult to get the same redshift. So, how can you claim that the space expansion adjust them all to the same level?

Because we can't see past R1 at all.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects
List of the most distant astronomical objects
We see that GN-z11 galaxy is located at a distance of 13.39   billion LY away and its redshift is only z = 11.09.
So, why we get exactly Z = 1400 in the CMB, while for a galaxy that is located at the furthest location (13.39 billion LY)  in our Universe we only get 11.9?
4. If in one side our distance to the edge is only 13.39 billion LY =R1, what do you think should be the CMB redshift?
Do you agree that the radiation amplitude of the furthest galaxy gets to our location at the minimal value (as 1/R^2).
So, if we look directly in this direction we should get radiations from all the galaxies which are located in that line. those galaxies has lower redshift but higher radiation amplitude.
Hence, we should see in the CMB (at the direction of GN-z11 galaxy) the sum of all the radiations from all the galaxies/objects that are located in this direction.
As the furthest galaxy has a minimal radiation amplitude with a redshift of 11.9, while closer galaxies with much more radiation amplitude have a lower redshift (lower even than 1), do you agree that the average redshift should actually be much lower than 11.9. (could it be 2 or even less than 1?).
If so, how could it be that we get a redshift of 1400 in the CMB in all directions? Why not 5 or 11.9?
Do you agree that this redshift value of 1400  is a real enigma for any finite Universe?

The reason is because the light from those distant galaxies was emitted when the Universe was relatively old (about 1,000,000,000 years after the Big Bang), whereas the light that would become the CMB was emitted when the Universe first became translucent (only about 379,000 years after the Big Bang). So the CMB has been experiencing redshift for far, far longer than the light from any galaxy has.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid

I really don't understand how do you set the contrediction:
In one hand you claim that:

Radiation that has traveled further would be more redshifted because it has been moving through an expanding space for a longer period of time.

Based on this answer it is clear to me that the radiation that has traveled further (from 1000 times R1) would be more redshifted than the radiation that traveled only one R1.
So, how could it be that we get the same radiation from a distance of R1 and 1000 times R1.
I read your following explanation and I still don't understand:
You claim that:

We can't see past R1 so what is happening 1,000 times further away isn't visible to us. I say that we can't see past R1 because the edge of the total Universe must be somewhere outside of the observable universe (otherwise we could detect that edge). So R1 must be at least slightly beyond the edge of the observable universe, putting R1000 just that much further beyond our observation abilities.

So, I agree that R1 represents the nearby edge of our universe and must be at least slightly beyond the edge of the observable universe.
However, we know that on the other side of the Universe, our distance to the edge of the Universe is 1000 times R1. So, why in that direction we don't get higher redshift as the distance is longer by 1000 times?
How it could be that we get a redshift of 1400 if the edge is just slightly beyond the edge of the observable universe or if it 1000 times longer?
Actually, if we get a redshift of 1400 from a far end galaxy, can we calculate/extract the estimated distance to this galaxy?
If so, what is the distance that redshift of 1400 represents?
If we get the same redshift from all directions, why we can't assume that we are located just at the center of the Universe?


 

[Halc]

The visible universe represents the limits of what we can see
...

We are about 46 billion light-years from the edge of the visible universe, so we are at least that far from any hypothetical absolute edge of the Universe as well.

I am going to protest the top statement.  The visible universe represents the current proper distance of the furthest material that could ever have had a causal effect on our current location.  That by no means says we can see that far.  The event horizon is only about a third that distance and anything beyond that cannot have an effect here ever, so that's the absolute limit of how far we can see if we're willing to wait forever.

The light from the CMB is the furthest we can see, and it was emitted a scant ~1.3 million light years (proper distance) from the comoving location corresponding to here.  The journey from there to us/here/now took it considerably further away than that, but no more than say a single digit of BLY away (proper distance again).  That's the furthest we can see, which is well inside the Hubble sphere.  If that light's journey took it to the edge of the universe, it would presumably be affected by that.  We'd see it.  We cannot see any further away than that.
So R1 is not very far at all, no more than 20% of that 46 BLY radius of the 'visible universe'.

To illustrate:

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects
List of the most distant astronomical objects
We see that GN-z11 galaxy is located at a distance of 13.39   billion LY away and its redshift is only z = 11.09.
So, why we get exactly Z = 1400 in the CMB, while for a galaxy that is located at the furthest location (13.39 billion LY)  in our Universe we only get 11.9?

You will notice a little mark on the collumn where this 13.39 'location' is listed.  It says there that the number has no direct physical significance.  We can't see that far.  The object isn't that far.  The time it took light to get from there to here is not 13.39 billion years in any meaningful frame.  It isn't proper distance.
The CMB is considerably further away than that, yet is not listed as it isn't a distinct galaxy or other object.  And yet the CMB light was emitted only 1.3 million (not billion) light years away.

[Kryptid]

Based on this answer it is clear to me that the radiation that has traveled further (from 1000 times R1) would be more redshifted than the radiation that traveled only one R1.

There hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for any radiation to travel to that far.

ased on this answer it is clear to me that the radiation that has traveled further (from 1000 times R1) would be more redshifted than the radiation that traveled only one R1.
So, how could it be that we get the same radiation from a distance of R1 and 1000 times R1.

We don't because we can't see any radiation from beyond R1.

So, why in that direction we don't get higher redshift as the distance is longer by 1000 times?

Because we can't see any radiation from beyond R1. How do you possibly expect to measure radiation that hasn't even made it to you?

How it could be that we get a redshift of 1400 if the edge is just slightly beyond the edge of the observable universe or if it 1000 times longer?
Actually, if we get a redshift of 1400 from a far end galaxy, can we calculate/extract the estimated distance to this galaxy?
If so, what is the distance that redshift of 1400 represents?

I don't think there are any galaxies in the observable universe with a redshift anywhere near that high, but you can estimate distances to galaxies based on redshift. I don't know what the equation involved is, though.

If we get the same redshift from all directions, why we can't assume that we are located just at the center of the Universe?

We are located in the center of the observable universe. Since the speed of light is the same in all directions, this means that the distance we can see in all directions is equal. Where this observable universe sits inside the total Universe is unknown.

I am going to protest the top statement.  The visible universe represents the current proper distance of the furthest material that could ever have had a causal effect on our current location.  That by no means says we can see that far.  The event horizon is only about a third that distance and anything beyond that cannot have an effect here ever, so that's the absolute limit of how far we can see if we're willing to wait forever.

The light from the CMB is the furthest we can see, and it was emitted a scant ~1.3 million light years (proper distance) from the comoving location corresponding to here.  The journey from there to us/here/now took it considerably further away than that, but no more than say a single digit of BLY away (proper distance again).  That's the furthest we can see, which is well inside the Hubble sphere.  If that light's journey took it to the edge of the universe, it would presumably be affected by that.  We'd see it.  We cannot see any further away than that.
So R1 is not very far at all, no more than 20% of that 46 BLY radius of the 'visible universe'.

Alright.

[Halc]

I don't think there are any galaxies in the observable universe with a redshift anywhere near that high, but you can estimate distances to galaxies based on redshift. I don't know what the equation involved is, though.

I don't know the equation offhand either, but if you look at the redshift figures for the list of 'furthest galaxies' linked, you notice that the whole list has not much distance variance, but the redshift factor number goes up dramatically for the entries at the top of the list.   The number apparently come from the Lambda-CDM model, a plot (from wiki) appearing here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Distance_compared_to_z.png/400px-Distance_compared_to_z.png

Notice that a galaxy at 13.4 GLY (that funny figure that corresponds to nothing physical) plots nicely at 11, and the CMB with z=1100 seems to be 46 GLY away by that measure.
That's contradictory to what I've read about most distant objects since they've measured a quazar at something like 22 GLY away, meaning that object is now that far away, but within our event horizon back when the light reaching us now was first emitted.  So I don't know exactly what is being measured on the vertical axis of that graph.
Notice that the graph levels off at 46 GLY, with z approaching indefinite values as distance approaches the 'size of the visible universe'.  If we could see through the CMB barrier, we'd observer redshifts far greater than 1100.
The red line is the Hubble red shift, and that goes to infinite z at the Hubble radius.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I don't know the equation offhand either, but if you look at the redshift figures for the list of 'furthest galaxies' linked, you notice that the whole list has not much distance variance, but the redshift factor number goes up dramatically for the entries at the top of the list.   The number apparently come from the Lambda-CDM model, a plot (from wiki) appearing here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Distance_compared_to_z.png/400px-Distance_compared_to_z.png
Notice that a galaxy at 13.4 GLY (that funny figure that corresponds to nothing physical) plots nicely at 11, and the CMB with z=1100 seems to be 46 GLY away by that measure.

Thanks Halc
This is very interesting data.
Hence, the CMB with z=1100 seems to be 46 GLY away by that measure!
So, why do you claim that the CMB was emitted only 1.3 million (not billion) light years away.

The CMB is considerably further away than that, yet is not listed as it isn't a distinct galaxy or other object.  And yet the CMB light was emitted only 1.3 million (not billion) light years away.

I really don't understand that contradiction.
You also see the contradiction, but I couldn't understand what do you really mean:

That's contradictory to what I've read about most distant objects since they've measured a quazar at something like 22 GLY away, meaning that object is now that far away, but within our event horizon back when the light reaching us now was first emitted.  So I don't know exactly what is being measured on the vertical axis of that graph.
Notice that the graph levels off at 46 GLY, with z approaching indefinite values as distance approaches the 'size of the visible universe'.  If we could see through the CMB barrier, we'd observer redshifts far greater than 1100.
The red line is the Hubble red shift, and that goes to infinite z at the Hubble radius.

Actually, our scientists claim that the CMB is evidence for the BBT.
So, if the Big bang had been set 13.8 Billion years ago, how could it be that the CMB which is consider as a product of the BBT comes from a distance of 46GLY?
Actually, if we see today a radiation which had been emitted from a distance of 46GLY, don't you think that it proves that our real universe should be much bigger than the estimated size of the observable Universe?
If so, how can we fit that size of the Universe in only 13.8 BY?
Do you think that it could set a contradiction in the BBT?

[Halc]

Hence, the CMB with z=1100 seems to be 46 GLY away by that measure!
So, why do you claim that the CMB was emitted only 1.3 million (not billion) light years away.

Read the post where I said that. The thing 45 GLY away is not the CMB anymore.  It is a collection of galaxies that it has become after 13.8 billion years just like it did here. We cannot see that. We can only see light that is here, now. The CMB that we see is redshifted radiation that was emitted 1.3 million proper LY away, back when the universe was 379,000 years old. It is a perfect shell of uniform radius at any given moment, and hence appears totally uniform to us due to symmetry. The CMB we see is isotropic because we're at the center of it.

The CMB is considerably further away than that, yet is not listed as it isn't a distinct galaxy or other object.  And yet the CMB light was emitted only 1.3 million (not billion) light years away.

I really don't understand that contradiction. You also see the contradiction, but I couldn't understand what do you really mean:

I didn't make any contradiction.  The 'distant' galaxies (or at least the material that would become them) were closer than 1.3 million LY away back at the same time that the CMB light we see now was emitted.  Everything was closer back then.  That's what expansion of space means.

Actually, our scientists claim that the CMB is evidence for the BBT.

Of course.  The BBT predicts it.  Other theories have to find some other way to explain it.

So, if the Big bang had been set 13.8 Billion years ago, how could it be that the CMB which is consider as a product of the BBT comes from a distance of 46GLY?

It doesn't come from that distance.  It comes from 1.3 million LY away.  45GLY is where that material is now, assuming (possibly incorrectly) that the Lambda-CDM model figures its distances that way. 46GLY is even further, but light from there is blocked by the hot plasma of the early universe. I'm not particularly familiar with the Lambda-CDM model, but it is apparently the computation used when asserting the 46 GLY radius of the visible universe.
Remember, I cannot even see the moon right now.  I see some past image of it.  My ability to see into the present is zero.  Light doesn't travel infinitely fast, so I can see nothing in its current state.

Actually, if we see today a radiation which had been emitted from a distance of 46GLY,

We can't.  Light from that far away will not get here ever, even after infinite time.  The event horizon is only ~16GLY away.  Anything beyond that can never be seen.

don't you think that it proves that our real universe should be much bigger than the estimated size of the observable Universe?

It is improbable indeed that the universe is as small as that, but since the furthest we can see (now) is under 10GLY, a hyperspherical universe of radius 1.6GLY would actually look like what we see.  That radius is 30x smaller than 46GLY, but I think perhaps the curvature of such a tight universe might be noticed.

It is an interesting exercise to measure curvature.  Suppose you are on an non-spinning an non-orbiting Earth and you posit Earth is flat and infinite. Your argument seems to be that if it were finite and we were not at the exact center, we'd notice the current of the water as it migrates to the edge and falls off. You do all these calculation showing the improbability of being closer to the center than not. But you never consider a round planet.
How might you measure that? If its a small radius, you might just travel a short ways and notice that the stars have moved, but what if you were confined to one city block?  You can draw a triangle on a parking lot and notice that the angles don't add up to 180 (if you're super accurate with your measurements), but what if the the other angles of the triangle are out of reach?  Such is the difficultly of measuring curvature from one point.

If so, how can we fit that size of the Universe in only 13.8 BY?

I managed to cram it into a ninth that size.  No, I don't propose the universe is that small, but that's about the limit before we'd see an anomaly in the CMB.

Do you think that it could set a contradiction in the BBT?

BBT doesn't assert a finite universe that small, so of course that wouldn't contradict it.  It doesn't assert a finite or infinite universe at all.  If it did, I suppose there would be a stronger opinion of which is correct.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The 'distant' galaxies (or at least the material that would become them) were closer than 1.3 million LY away back at the same time that the CMB light we see now was emitted.  Everything was closer back then.  That's what expansion of space means.

Thanks
I don't understand how a redshift which we are using for galaxies can't also be used for the CMB?
A redshift is a redshift. It comes as an information in the radiation. It comes from any kind of matter. We can call this matter: dust, Gas cloud, stars, galaxies... (What about CMB radiation from dark matter or dark energy?)
So, if we claim that a radiation from a galaxy with a redshift of 1100 represents a distance of  46GLY, why a radiation which we call CMB with a redshift of 1100 doesn't represents a radiation which had been emitted from a distance of 46GLY?
Few more questions:
1. Do you mean that the whole mass of the Universe were at some point of time at a maximal distance of only 1.3 Million LY from each other?
2. If so, do you agree that there is no way to set an infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?
3. In this case, why do you claim that we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. Do you agree that based on the BBT the Universe must be finite? If we will discover that the Universe is infinite, than what do you prefer: a problem with the discovery or a problem with the BBT?
4. If we could eliminate completely the impact of the BBT on the CMB
What is the expected CMB that we should get with regards to Amplitude, Redshift and isotroic?
5. Do we have any idea what is the estimated amplitude degradation in the CMB per one million year?
6. If we could come back to our Universe in one Billion or 10 Billion years from now, then what kind of CMB we might find?
7. Can we extract from the CMB the total mass of the whole Universe?

[evan_au]

I don't understand how a redshift which we are using for galaxies can't also be used for the CMB?

The CMB originated from a soup of hot atomic gas (mostly Hydrogen, some Helium) which had just cooled below 3000K, and become transparent to visible light.

It should not be possible for stars to condense when temperatures are this high, so we don't expect to find galaxies of stars of the same age of the CMB. So the first galaxies (pinwheels of stars) are expected to have a lower redshift than the CMB.

Footnote: Astronomers have seen that the black holes at the core of quasars formed surprisingly early in the early universe, and it is not clear what pulled these supermassive black holes together. It is conceivable that these cores were formed during the Big Bang, started like a giant accretion disk of gas; galaxies of stars later formed around them.