[Dave Lev (OP)]

No, you would not make a sudden U-turn at any point and there is no edge of space where you could even make such a U-turn. The curvature is not sudden like that. You are traveling through curved space at all times along the journey, just like you are walking over the curved surface of the Earth at all times if you tried to walk around the globe. At no point do you turn around in 3-dimensional space just like at no point do you turn around when you walk around the Earth. Nor do you encounter any edge of space anymore than you encounter an edge to the Earth.

Thanks
Somehow you insist to explain the CMB only by the idea of hypersphere, while when we discuss on the Expansion and Observable Universe we normally discuss on the normal three dimensions.
So, let's see what is the real meaning of - hypersphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere
"An n-sphere embedded in an (n + 1)-dimensional Euclidean space is called a hypersphere."
"In mathematics, the n-sphere is the generalization of the ordinary sphere to spaces of arbitrary dimension. It is an n-dimensional manifold that can be embedded in Euclidean (n + 1)-space."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere
In mathematics, a 3-sphere, or glome,[1] is a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere.
It is stated clearly: In mathematics...
So, in the nature there is no real object as hypersphere. It is only exist as a mathematical concept/idea.
Therefore, we can't explain the behavior of the CMB based on that Unreal mathematical model.
We have to explain the CMB on real Universe.
As our real Universe has only three dimensions, then only this real model should be used for our explanation.
In any case, this mathematical idea of the hypersphere confirms your message about the curvature:
"Stereographic projection of the hypersphere's parallels (red), meridians (blue) and hypermeridians (green).
"All curves are circles"
They also show that there is a possibility for a curves with infinite radius:
"the curves that intersect ⟨0,0,0,1⟩ have infinite radius (= straight line).
So, they show that the radius is a function of the fourth dimension in that mathematical concept.
However, as the Fourth dimension is not part of the expansion, it is quite clear to me that there is no way to expand the hypersphere.
So, if we wish to use this unreal mathematical model for our universe in order to prove the CMB, we actually can't use it for the expansion. Therefore, our scientists do not even try to set any connection between the hypersphere to the expansion.
Let me use the earth example:

just like you are walking over the curved surface of the Earth at all times if you tried to walk around the globe.

So, if the Universe is like the surface of the earth, the expansion is like the tectonic plates. Those plates can move or expand, but they can't increase the size of the surface of the earth.
In the same token, the expansion which works perfectly at the real three dimension universe, can't work at that mathematical concept that we call hypersphere (as the expansion has no impact on the fourth dimension)
Do you agree with all of that?

[Kryptid]

Somehow you insist to explain the CMB only by the idea of hypersphere, while when we discuss on the Expansion and Observable Universe we normally discuss on the normal three dimensions.

Three dimensions are already a part of the hypersphere. It's just that there is also an extra dimension that is curved.

So, in the nature there is no real object as hypersphere.

When was that ever demonstrated?

It is only exist as a mathematical concept/idea.

When was that ever demonstrated?

Therefore, we can't explain the behavior of the CMB based on that Unreal mathematical model.
We have to explain the CMB on real Universe.

Whoever said it was "unreal"? You obviously can't see a hypersphere with your own, three-dimensional eyes or have one exist in three-dimensional space. It's a four-dimensional object. That's like expecting a two-dimensional being to be able to see a sphere. A hypersphere as a model for the shape of the universe has not been ruled out by any experiments.

As our real Universe has only three dimensions, then only this real model should be used for our explanation.

Three dimensions that you can see with your eyes, anyway. That doesn't rule out extra dimensions.

However, as the Fourth dimension is not part of the expansion, it is quite clear to me that there is no way to expand the hypersphere.

There is no reason why a hypersphere cannot expand, so I don't know what you are talking about. To think of an analogy, consider two-dimensional beings living embedded on the skin of an inflating balloon. The balloon has an extra dimension that those two-dimensional beings cannot observe (a third dimension). The balloon is expanding in three dimensions simultaneously, causing all of the two-dimensional objects embedded in the balloon's surface to become further apart from each other over time. That is an analogy for universal expansion.

So, if we wish to use this unreal mathematical model for our universe in order to prove the CMB, we actually can't use it for the expansion. Therefore, our scientists do not even try to set any connection between the hypersphere to the expansion.

There is no need to "prove" the CMB. It's there for all to observe. I also explained with the balloon analogy why a hypersphere has no trouble expanding and that such an expansion easily explains why we observe objects receding away from us.

So, if the Universe is like the surface of the earth, the expansion is like the tectonic plates. Those plates can move or expand, but they can't increase the size of the surface of the earth.

The proper analogy with an expanding universe would be an expanding Earth. Just pretend the Earth is a giant balloon that is slowly inflating over time. That's more like what we are seeing.

In the same token, the expansion which works perfectly at the real three dimension universe, can't work at that mathematical concept that we call hypersphere (as the expansion has no impact on the fourth dimension)
Do you agree with all of that?

No I don't, because it's wrong. Just like an expanding balloon expands in all three dimensions, an expanding hypersphere expands in all four dimensions.

[Halc]

So, in the nature there is no real object as hypersphere.

Indeed, this has not been demonstrated.  The universe is not an object, and a hypersphere can very much exist in 4 dimensional spacetime.

Therefore, we can't explain the behavior of the CMB based on that Unreal mathematical model.

The hypersphere model isn't one of the CMB.  It is a model of finite space.  The CMB isotropy is consistent with it due to complete symmetry at any point.

"Stereographic projection of the hypersphere's parallels (red), meridians (blue) and hypermeridians (green).
"All curves are circles"
They also show that there is a possibility for a curves with infinite radius:
"the curves that intersect ⟨0,0,0,1⟩ have infinite radius (= straight line).

Are you suggesting the universe is a Stereographic projection?  That would render meaningless the classic definition of length.  Two stationary meter sticks would have different lengths depending on their location.

So, they show that the radius is a function of the fourth dimension in that mathematical concept.

Yes, that would be the time dimension.

However, as the Fourth dimension is not part of the expansion

It very much is a function of that dimension since expansion happens over time.

Let me use the earth example:

just like you are walking over the curved surface of the Earth at all times if you tried to walk around the globe.

So, if the Universe is like the surface of the earth, the expansion is like the tectonic plates.

The expansion would be more like inflating the Earth to a larger radius, with the continents separating because they're objects that don't particularly expand when the surface space does.  That's why they call it the balloon analogy since it resembles galaxies as stickers or coins on an inflating balloon.

Those plates can move or expand, but they can't increase the size of the surface of the earth.

Other way around.  Earth expands but the continents stay the same, so the oceans get wider.  Time is the vertical dimension in that analogy, with the big bang event at the center of Earth, and the future is up.

Putting the big bang at the center is considerably further than the balloon analogy is meant to go, but it fits nicely with the small hypersphere model.  The analogy, properly used, considers only a local portion of the surface of a balloon to explain what we observe locally.  The rest (the curvature of the surface) is a possibility but not an empirically measured thing.  Hence no way to demonstrate if the universe is finite or not.

Kryptid also described this.  The analogy is well known.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, they show that the radius is a function of the fourth dimension in that mathematical concept.

Yes, that would be the time dimension.

Sorry this is a fatal error.
Where do you see that the fourth dimension can be a time.
Actually it is a severe violation of the whole idea of the n-sphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere
Based on the following formula:
S^{n}=\left\{x\in \mathbb {R} ^{n+1}:\left\|x\right\|=r\right\}.
"That is, for any natural number n, an n-sphere of radius r may be defined in terms of an embedding in (n + 1)-dimensional Euclidean space as the set of points that are at distance r from a central point, where the radius r may be any positive real number."
Hence, it is clear that all dimensions must be based on the same unites.
If you chose three dimensions of length and one of time - you set a violation in the formula.
How can we add time to length?
If we take two dimensions of length and one dimension of time, shall we get a sphere?
If we add one kilo -gram to one meter  - does it mean that we get a two kilo-gram-meter?
So, do you agree by now that there is no way to fit different unites in the N-sphere formula?
Do you agree that the selection of time in the fourth dimension have set unrealistic N-sphere and therefore - unrealistic universe?

The hypersphere model isn't one of the CMB.  It is a model of finite space.

Sorry
This is also incorrect.
Hypersphere can also be infinite
It is stated clearly:
"the curves that intersect ⟨0,0,0,1⟩ have infinite radius (= straight line)".
So, even if you use in all four dimensions the same unites - we can get an infinite radius.
So, how can you use the hypersphere as an example for finite radius while it is stated clearly that it can also be infinite?

Are you suggesting the universe is a Stereographic projection?  That would render meaningless the classic definition of length.  Two stationary meter sticks would have different lengths depending on their location.

Sure
If you set a severe violation in your calculation/formula - you should get unrealistic outcome.

The universe is not an object, and a hypersphere can very much exist in 4 dimensional spacetime.

Sorry
The Universe is an object as the galaxy is an object and as the the star is an object.
The hypersphere can't exist in 4 dimensional spacetime.

The CMB isotropy is consistent with it due to complete symmetry at any point.

Sorry
The CMB is consistent with unrealistic hypersphere/Universe.
It is clear to me that our Universe is a real sphere with only three dimensions!
Not four dimensions, not five dimensions and not any sort of 3+n dimensions.
We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.

[Kryptid]

The CMB is consistent with unrealistic hypersphere/Universe.

There is nothing about our universe that is incompatible with it being a hypersphere.

It is clear to me that our Universe is a real sphere with only three dimensions!

The universe being a hypersphere is not incompatible with our ability to see only three dimensions. A two-dimensional creature living embedded in the surface of a balloon is only aware of the two dimensional surface that they live in even though the balloon itself is three-dimensional. If the balloon was large enough, the creature wouldn't even be aware of the balloon's curvature and they could just as easily believe that their universe was a completely flat, 2-dimensional space. In the same manner, the universe being a sufficiently-large hypersphere would go unnoticed by us because the curvature would be too gradual to detect.

We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.

Science isn't about proof.

[Halc]

So, they show that the radius is a function of the fourth dimension in that mathematical concept.

Yes, that would be the time dimension.

Sorry this is a fatal error.

Thank you. I'd be less confident about my statement if you considered it otherwise.

Where do you see that the fourth dimension can be a time.
Actually it is a severe violation of the whole idea of the n-sphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere

Spacetime modeled as a 4-ball is a simplified model of finite Minkowski spacetime.
The model is far more accurate locally, where space looks exactly like a local portion of a 3-sphere and time the dimension orthogonal to that.  When considered locally, there is no meaningful radius to the thing.  The size is thus not known, but the curvature is close enough to zero to be so far immeasurable.  Not sure how one might go about measuring it, as I described in a prior post.

Hence, it is clear that all dimensions must be based on the same unites.

In Minkowski spacetime, they are.

If you chose three dimensions of length and one of time - you set a violation in the formula. How can we add time to length?

Using vector arithmetic for one, but two points one second apart is the same separation as two points about 3e8 meters apart.  That separation is called the interval and is not frame dependent.  It can be computed for any two points in spacetime.

If we take two dimensions of length and one dimension of time, shall we get a sphere?

If you curve it into a ball, yes.  A sphere is a 2D surface and a ball is a 3D solid. It is the same difference as between a circle and a disk. This is terminology used in the N-sphere wiki site you linked.
Without the curving, you just have flat 3D spacetime, like the one used in a block representation of Conway's game of life.

The hypersphere model isn't one of the CMB.  It is a model of finite space.

Sorry
This is also incorrect.

Not a fatal mistake this time?  Aww....

Hypersphere can also be infinite
It is stated clearly:
"the curves that intersect ⟨0,0,0,1⟩ have infinite radius (= straight line)".

That isn't a hypersphere they're talking about.  That is a description of a stereographic projection of a finite 3-sphere onto Euclidean 3-space, which indeed requires infinite space.  Only the projection of a 1-sphere onto Euclidean 1-space can be done in finite space since there are no intersection points to keep perpendicular.

As for an infinite hypersphere, there is indeed no limit to the radius of such a thing.

So, how an you use the hypersphere as an example for finite radius while it is stated clearly that it can also be infinite?

You taking quotes out of context is not an example of something being clearly stated.

Sorry
The Universe is an object as the galaxy is an object and as the the star is an object.

There's your problem then. You inherit all the problems of such an assertion such as how distant things are receding from us faster than lightspeed or how it got to infinite size in finite time. I also think the universe is infinite, but that would be completely contradictory if the universe was an object.

The hypersphere can't exist in 4 dimensional spacetime.

That's like saying a circle can't exist in a 2 dimensional coordinate system.

It is clear to me that our Universe is a real sphere with only three dimensions!

Maybe you'd make more progress if you would drop the things that are clear to you and open yourself to other possibilities.  Science is not about closed mindedness like this.

A 3D sphere is a finite thing.  Arbitrarily large, sure, but if it is infinite, it is no longer a sphere.  So this contradicts one of the other things that is clear to you.  This illustrates the danger of everything being clear before you actually investigate the consequences.

Not four dimensions, not five dimensions and not any sort of 3+n dimensions.

A 3D infinite universe is a valid philosophical interpretation of the universe, but not the only valid one.  It becomes an object of sorts because it needs to exist in a container.  So there is a container universe outside the object universe.  That seeming contradiction in terms merely serves to illustrate the need to define your words carefully.

We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.

Something being clear to you is not evidence of anything, yet this seems to be your only evidence offered.  I'm pushing the hypersphere model not because I think it is that way, but because it could be.  The model is of a real thing, not an abstraction, and it yields a universe exactly like the one we see.  If it doesn't, then you have a falsification test.  There is no proof test.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks for the explanation.

Spacetime modeled as a 4-ball is a simplified model of finite Minkowski spacetime.
The model is far more accurate locally, where space looks exactly like a local portion of a 3-sphere and time the dimension orthogonal to that.

Let's try to compare the Newtonian mechanics with Minkowski spacetime:
http://einsteinrelativelyeasy.com/index.php/special-relativity/11-introduction-to-spacetime-diagrams
Newtonian mechanics - "In Newtonian mechanics, events are described using a three-dimensional Euclidean space time plus an independant scale of absolute time."
Minkowski spacetime
"Minkowski spacetime is the most common mathematical structure on which special relativity is formulated."
"Each such observer labels events in space-time by four inertial coordinates t, x, y, z."
" it is described by the spacetime interval ds2 = c2Δt2 - Δx2 - Δy2 - Δz2"
So, Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical structure which labels events in space-time by four inertial coordinates t, x, y, z.
it is described by the spacetime interval ds2 = c2Δt2 - Δx2 - Δy2 - Δz2
It also seems to me that the formula looks different from the four dimensions sphere (but I'm not sure about it.)
However, as it is stated - the Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical structure which set the time as one more dimension in space, therefore - it is unreal universe structure.
Our real universe is represented correctly only by Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian mechanics there is no curvature in the sphere. Therefore, in our real Universe there is no curvature.
Do you agree with that?

A 3D infinite universe is a valid philosophical interpretation of the universe, but not the only valid one.

I think that A 3D infinite/finite Universe which is based on Newtonian mechanics is the ONLY valid universe.

A 3D sphere is a finite thing.  Arbitrarily large, sure, but if it is infinite, it is no longer a sphere.  So this contradicts one of the other things that is clear to you.

Do you mean that if you take X,Y,Z to the infinity - then we get an infinite 3D universe, (but it isn't a sphere).
If so, I agree with you.
I claim the following:
1. The Universe is infinite 3D
2. There is no curvature in our real universe.
3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.
4. Its age is also infinite
So, how can I prove it:
Based on black body radiation. This is the ultimate prove that our universe is infinite.
I claim that if we set our galaxy under insulated enclosure - we should get the following:
All the radiation from the galaxy will stay under this insulated enclosure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"Suppose the cavity is held at a fixed temperature T and the radiation trapped inside the enclosure is at thermal equilibrium with the enclosure. The hole in the enclosure will allow some radiation to escape. If the hole is small, radiation passing in and out of the hole has negligible effect upon the equilibrium of the radiation inside the cavity. This escaping radiation will approximate black-body radiation that exhibits a distribution in energy characteristic of the temperature T and does not depend upon the properties of the cavity or the hole, at least for wavelengths smaller than the size of the hole"
So, if we will measure the radiation under this insulated enclosure, do you agree that we should get a perfect black body radiation?
Now, let's set 10Mpc of our universe under this kind of insulated enclosure.
If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K  and it should also carry a black body radiation. So, we should get almost the same CMB that we measure (with one exception - redshift)
However, in reality, we can't set the galaxy under insulated enclosure.
So, just think about the following possibility -
Let's assume that our universe is infinity.
Let's divide it to infinite insulated enclosure Cube. The size of each cube will be 10Mpc. The temp in each cube is 2.7K and it has a black body radiation.
So, if we look at X dimension - there will be infinite 10Mpc insulated enclosure cube which are connected to each other.
That will be the case also for Y and z dimensions.
Now, what would be the impact if we eliminate the insulated enclosure between two nearby cubes?
As each one of them has a temp of 2.7K with black body radiation - it is quite clear that the two will keep the same temp and the same black body radiation.
Even if we eliminate the insulated enclosure between the cubes to the 13 BLY sphere the same temp and black body will remain.
However - now as the radiation comes from far locations - we should see the some redshift in the CMB.
Never the less, even if the value of a galaxy which is located at a distance of 13 BLY is 10 (for example), it doesn't mean that we should get all of this redshift in the radiation. It should represent the impact of all the galaxies/matter in that sphere.
So, I can just assume that we might get all range of redshift up to 10, but the average should be much lower.
if we eliminate the insulated enclosure between all the cubes to the infinity - than the temp will stay at 2.7K and also the black body radiation.
With regards to the redshift -
As it comes from a galaxies which are located at the infinity - we should get wide mix of redshift up to the infinity.
However, the average should be exactly 1100.
So, the CMB that we get is the radiation from the real matter in our real infinite Universe which its age is also infinity.
Do you agree with that?


 

[Halc]

Let's try to compare the Newtonian mechanics with Minkowski spacetime:
http://einsteinrelativelyeasy.com/index.php/special-relativity/11-introduction-to-spacetime-diagrams
Newtonian mechanics - "In Newtonian mechanics, events are described using a three-dimensional Euclidean space time plus an independant scale of absolute time."

It can be done with 4D space/time (as it had been in those days), but it wouldn't be Minkowski spacetime with the Lorentz transformations and all.

it is described by the spacetime interval ds2 = c2Δt2 - Δx2 - Δy2 - Δz2
It also seems to me that the formula looks different from the four dimensions sphere (but I'm not sure about it.)

Special relativity covers the flat spacetime case, as does the Minkowski spacetime on which it was based.

However, as it is stated - the Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical structure which set the time as one more dimension in space,

In addition to the 3 spatial dimensions.  It doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.

therefore - it is unreal universe structure.

You seem not to agree with it, so you label it 'unreal'.  How very well argued.

Our real universe is represented correctly only by Newtonian mechanics.

That has been empirically falsified.

Do you agree with that?

Stop asking me if I agree with any of your assertions.  You probably know the answer.

A 3D infinite universe is a valid philosophical interpretation of the universe, but not the only valid one.

I think that A 3D infinite/finite Universe which is based on Newtonian mechanics is the ONLY valid universe.

You're repeating yourself.  You've not falsified the other view, so this wrong.  It might well be the case, but if the other views work, they're equally valid even if not correct.

A 3D sphere is a finite thing.  Arbitrarily large, sure, but if it is infinite, it is no longer a sphere.  So this contradicts one of the other things that is clear to you.

Do you mean that if you take X,Y,Z to the infinity - then we get an infinite 3D universe, (but it isn't a sphere).

Right (except for terminology).  What you call a sphere (a 3D ball actually) has an edge.  An infinite universe does not.  A sphere may have no edge, but it is only a two dimensional non-Euclidean surface, and hence does not correspond to our universe.

If so, I agree with you.
I claim the following:
1. The Universe is infinite 3D
2. There is no curvature in our real universe.
3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.
4. Its age is also infinite

The last one is on shaky ground since it seems to contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there are those who hold such a view and attempt ways to get around that.  Just asserting your way past it doesn't work.

So, how can I prove it:

You can't prove stuff like that.  At best you can demonstrate that the view is consistent, but to prove it you need to falsify not only all other views but also the view that nobody has yet proposed.
We've told you thing countless times, yet you persist in claiming you have proofs of things.

Based on black body radiation. This is the ultimate prove that our universe is infinite.
I claim that if we set our galaxy under insulated enclosure - we should get the following:
All the radiation from the galaxy will stay under this insulated enclosure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"Suppose the cavity is held at a fixed temperature T and the radiation trapped inside the enclosure is at thermal equilibrium with the enclosure. The hole in the enclosure will allow some radiation to escape. If the hole is small, radiation passing in and out of the hole has negligible effect upon the equilibrium of the radiation inside the cavity. This escaping radiation will approximate black-body radiation that exhibits a distribution in energy characteristic of the temperature T and does not depend upon the properties of the cavity or the hole, at least for wavelengths smaller than the size of the hole"
So, if we will measure the radiation under this insulated enclosure, do you agree that we should get a perfect black body radiation?

You have a galaxy in there, which is hardly in thermal equilibrium like the quote above describes.  So no.  I've answered this before.  There will be hot spots nearer the points of higher radiation.

Now, let's set 10Mpc of our universe under this kind of insulated enclosure.
If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K  and it should also carry a black body radiation. So, we should get almost the same CMB that we measure (with one exception - redshift)

The temperature would be more uniform, but still hotter where galaxies are near.  You've not computed the temperature at all, but rather asserted it, which is hardly proof of anything.

So, if we look at X dimension - there will be infinite 10Mpc insulated enclosure cube which are connected to each other.
That will be the case also for Y and z dimensions.
Now, what would be the impact if we eliminate the insulated enclosure between two nearby cubes?

The galaxies would be able to move between cubes instead of smashing into the sides like they would when you cubed up all of space into small 10Mpc cages like that.  They're not standing still you know.
The distant galaxies are moving away, so the radiation from those distant places is much lower temperature than the nearby places.  If it's 2.7K here, it is far less than that if you look deep into space.  That's what redshift does.  The CMB would be immeasurable since we'd get radiationj only by looking at actual stars and not looking between them.

As each one of them has a temp of 2.7K with black body radiation - it is quite clear that the two will keep the same temp and the same black body radiation.

I see what you're describing and there would be a background radiation something like that if everything stood essentially still relative to us, but that's not what we see.  Your model does not account for the observed recession of all objects.

However - now as the radiation comes from far locations - we should see the some redshift in the CMB.

Yes, so that lowers the measured temperature from the 2.7K that it would appear if not redshifted.

Never the less, even if the value of a galaxy which is located at a distance of 13 BLY is 10 (for example), it doesn't mean that we should get all of this redshift in the radiation. It should represent the impact of all the galaxies/matter in that sphere.
So, I can just assume that we might get all range of redshift up to 10, but the average should be much lower.

Most galaxies are far more distant that a mere 13 BLY in an infinite universe.

With regards to the redshift -
As it comes from a galaxies which are located at the infinity - we should get wide mix of redshift up to the infinity.

Redshift is an effect, not a thing.  It doesn't come from anywhere.  Light does.  How can distant galaxies move faster than light? Or do they not do this?
Hubble's law says 70 km/s/Mpc, so it doesn't take deep mathematics to realize that anything 14 BLY away is moving faster than light, assuming we're standing still.
For that matter, why are we the only ones standing nearly still?  What would it look like if we were moving at a significant percentage of light speed?  It's your naive belief, so I have no idea how to answer questions like that.
Newtonian mechanics actually allows objects to move at greater than lightspeed, but they would not be able to see anything in most directions just like you can't hear an approaching supersonic jet.

However, the average should be exactly 1100.

In an infinite universe, the vast majority of galaxies would have a redshift higher than that since only the ones within 45 BLY would exhibit that shift, and that's less than 1% of the universe.

[Kryptid]

Our real universe is represented correctly only by Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian mechanics there is no curvature in the sphere. Therefore, in our real Universe there is no curvature.

Newtonian mechanics gives an incorrect prediction for the amount of gravitational lensing of light around the Sun. Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time around the Sun, does give the correct prediction for gravitational lensing.

If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K

Show the calculations. We're not going to take your word for it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks

However, as it is stated - the Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical structure which set the time as one more dimension in space,

In addition to the 3 spatial dimensions.  It doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.

That is correct.
Minkowski was a very clever scientist. The idea of spacetime is brilliant with regards to the mathematical concept/structure. However, Minkowski have never ever claimed that in our real universe the time is orthogonal to the other 3 spatial dimensions. So, Minkowski spacetime is a brilliant idea to set a calculation with regards to time/space for special cases.
We can't just take it to the extreme. As we do so, we get unrealistic results which set our universe as unreal universe based on that spacetime. Only Newtonian mechanics gives the correct prediction for our whole universe!
Therefore, there is no curvature in our real Universe, but there is a curvature if we take the Minkowski spacetime to the extreme.

Newtonian mechanics gives an incorrect prediction for the amount of gravitational lensing of light around the Sun. Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time around the Sun, does give the correct prediction for gravitational lensing.

There are no black holes under Newtonian mechanics.  That requires curvature of space.

Yes, I fully agree with that.
Newtonian mechanics can't give a perfect prediction to all cases.
Hence, if we look at a very special cases, as the amount of gravitational lensing of light around the Sun or black holes, it is clear that Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time is a perfect modeling.
However, in the same token - Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time, is a perfect solution for the gravitational lensing of light around the Sun and black holes, but it gives an incorrect prediction if we try to set it at the extreme and verify with it the whole infinite universe.
We need to fit the modeling for each case.
Why don't we use Einsteinian relativity to calculate the gravity forces between stars and planets?
Why do we prefer Newton law?
Therefore:
Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time is the ultimate tool for a special cases and it gives the best perfect prediction for those cases. However, if we use that curved space-time as a module for our whole universe we get unrealistic results as it gets to the extreme and therefore, the predictions are incorrect.
Newtonian mechanics is the only ultimate tool for the prediction of our whole universe!
As in our real universe the time isn't orthogonal to the other 3 spatial dimensions, there is no curved space-time in our real universe.
Any radiation that had been emitted from point A should move to the infinity and never ever come back!!!
Therefore, the CMB that we see around us, is coming from all the matter in our real infinite universe.
As our universe is infinite - we get a perfect isotropic radiation from all directions.
So, there is no meaning for our location in this infinite universe, as long as the distance to any "edge" of the universe is still infinite!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Now, let's set 10Mpc of our universe under this kind of insulated enclosure.
If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K  and it should also carry a black body radiation. So, we should get almost the same CMB that we measure (with one exception - redshift)

The temperature would be more uniform, but still hotter where galaxies are near.

Thanks.
Yes, I have used the idea of 10Mpc in order to get more uniform temperature. We actually know that Universe is Uniform on Large Scales (10Mpc)
I also agree with you that the temp might be hotter were galaxies are near.
However, we need to think about a galaxy as some sort of heat element in an oven.
Once the oven is closed, and there is no heat loose, then the temp in the oven might go up to almost the temp of the heating elements.
In the same token, if we set the galaxy in insulated enclosure/oven - the temp in that oven should go up and meet almost the temp of the galaxy.

You've not computed the temperature at all, but rather asserted it, which is hardly proof of anything.

I agree.
I didn't set the calculation for the expected temperature in 10Mpc insulated enclosure as I have no clue about the density of galaxies/satrs/matter in that size. However, it is clear to me that if we do so, we should get exactly that 2.7 K temp.

I claim the following:
1. The Universe is infinite 3D
2. There is no curvature in our real universe.
3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.
4. Its age is also infinite

The last one is on shaky ground since it seems to contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there are those who hold such a view and attempt ways to get around that.

The age of the Universe in infinite. Why do you claim that it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Is it because you reject the idea of constant mass creation in the excretion disc around the SMBH. This idea is much more stable and solid than the shaky ground about the curvature universe based on the mathematical structure of spacetime.
I know that it is very difficult for you to accept the idea of new mass creation.
However - this is the driving force of our Universe.
Once you agree with that - you get full answer to the enigma of our universe.
If we could go in back time - we should find that the CMB temp/features and the universe density at 10^100 years ago was exactly as it is today.
So, the same CMB and the same universe density will stay with us forever and ever.

However, the average should be exactly 1100.
In an infinite universe, the vast majority of galaxies would have a redshift higher than that since only the ones within 45 BLY would exhibit that shift, and that's less than 1% of the universe.

I agree
The ultimate answer for that is the Shell_theorem as explained by Kryptid

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

If we set the Shell_theorem on the infinite universe it is clear to me that the average impact of the radiation should be exactly at a redshift of 1100 (although this redshift represents a distance of only 45 BLY). 

 

As each one of them has a temp of 2.7K with black body radiation - it is quite clear that the two will keep the same temp and the same black body radiation.

I see what you're describing and there would be a background radiation something like that if everything stood essentially still relative to us, but that's not what we see.  Your model does not account for the observed recession of all objects.

Thanks
So we agree that there would be a background radiation something like that, if everything stood essentially still relative to us.
That's all I ask.
The whole idea is that if we can hold the galaxies/matter in each 10Mpc cube, we should get that background radiation.
My modeling gives a perfect solution for the observed recession of all objects/galaxies.
So, how it works?

1. New Born Spiral Galaxy
Each mother spiral galaxy creates new baby spiral galaxies. This Idea perfectly fits and explains the source of the hydrogen "bridge" between Andromeda Galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611193632.htm
"The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
As both Andromeda and Triangulum are Spiral Galaxies, with rotational suppermassive black hole, they should have the requested power to generate Hydrogen Atoms in their core. Therefore, as they are drifting apart, they are releasing Hydrogen and set this kind of bridge!!! Andromeda has about 1,000 Billion stars. It is the mother spiral galaxy. Triangulum has about 40 billion stars. Therefore, it is a young spiral galaxy. This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.
2. "Living" Galaxy
I see high similarity between animals and Galaxies. Let's look at our universe. What do we see? We see more and more galaxies, at different shape and size. So let's compare those galaxies to animals. But first, let's try to understand how animals had been created. It's quite clear that an animal had been born by similar animal. Therefore, life can create new life. Any living animal is a direct product of another living animal. There is no possibility for animal to be created out of a dead body!
Therefore, spiral galaxy should be considered as a "living" galaxy, as it has the ability to create baby spiral galaxy.
In the past, it was believed that the life on Earth had started in some sort of a blast or divine power.
Thanks to Darwin we know how the life on our Earth had been evolved. We don't know how the first living cell had been created. We can set the same concept on spiral galaxies. We don't know how the first "living" spiral galaxy (or BH with excretion disc) had been created. But once it had been created, our universe had been evolved from it. So, the first spiral galaxy in the universe can be considered as the first living galaxy which creates the whole matter in our universe as we see today.
3. Acceleration of far end galaxies
That first "living galaxy" (let's call it - first generation) had created new others living galaxies. Let's assume that each new born galaxy (from the second generation) had been ejected from the first generation galaxy at the orbital speed of the Solar System around the center of the Galaxy - approximately 220 km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light (at a random direction in space). However, those second generation galaxies also have the ability to create other new galaxies. Therefore, they have created the third galaxies generation. As expected the third generation galaxies had also been ejected in all directions at the same 220 Km/s.
Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec) - with regards to the first generation galaxy.
So, there is no request for any sort of space expansion to prove the recession of all objects/galaxies.
All we need is just one first spiral galaxy and infinite time.
This also show why galaxies are moving in all directions while the furthest galaxies have the most recession speed.

[Halc]

It doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.

The idea of spacetime is brilliant with regards to the mathematical concept/structure. However, Minkowski have never ever claimed that in our real universe the time is orthogonal to the other 3 spatial dimensions.

Yes he did.  He didn't come up with the idea, which had been around since before Newton's time, but he combined that old idea with Lorentz's transformation equation to show how the time axis is not fixed, but can be arbitrarily oriented, just like there is no obvious X axis to space, leaving one to arbitrarily assign it any direction one finds convenient.

So, Minkowski spacetime is a brilliant idea to set a calculation with regards to time/space for special cases.

The Euclidean simplicity works locally, but a non-Euclidean extension is needed to account for bent spacetime.

We can't just take it to the extreme. As we do so, we get unrealistic results which set our universe as unreal universe based on that spacetime.

What unrealistic results are these?

There are no black holes under Newtonian mechanics.  That requires curvature of space.

Yes, I fully agree with that.

You just contradicted yourself:

Therefore, there is no curvature in our real Universe

Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time, is a perfect solution for the gravitational lensing of light around the Sun and black holes, but it gives an incorrect prediction if we try to set it at the extreme and verify with it the whole infinite universe.

What prediction would that be?  It contradicting one of your assertions just makes your beliefs incompatible with accepted science.  An assertion is not a prediction.  A prediction is a proposal for an empirical test.
 

Why don't we use Einsteinian relativity to calculate the gravity forces between stars and planets?
Why do we prefer Newton law?

Because they're not different.  Einstein did not propose a different formula that I know of.

Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time is the ultimate tool for a special cases

Wrong.  Special relativity is the tool for the special case of flat spacetime.  That's why it's called special relativity.  General relativity is for the general case.  That one describes the universe.  SR cannot describe it since it forbids really distant galaxies from increasing their proper distance from us at a rate greater than light speed.  SR can only be used for situations that are local and not in a significant gravitational field.  GR can be used for anything.

and it gives the best perfect prediction for those cases. However, if we use that curved space-time as a module for our whole universe we get unrealistic results as it gets to the extreme and therefore, the predictions are incorrect.

Name one.

Newtonian mechanics is the only ultimate tool for the prediction of our whole universe!

Newton envisioned a universe perhaps limited to 10000 light years.  Not sure when the term 'light year' was coined, but they had just learned a figure for it, so I imagine the term wasn't far behind.

As in our real universe the time isn't orthogonal to the other 3 spatial dimensions

I don't think Newton ever denied the validity of this interpretation of time, but he would have said (as everyone did) that the units are different and that the axis orientation is fixed, not arbitrary.  Minkowski showed that the units are the same and that the orientation is arbitrary, something that was becoming apparent to several people around the end of the 19th century.

Any radiation that had been emitted from point A should move to the infinity and never ever come back!!!

Even infinite space models do not suggest that.  There is an event horizon, just short of 16 BLY out.  A star there (a very finite distance away) can emit light now and that light will never reach here ever.  So again, you have beliefs incompatible with reality.

[Kryptid]

but it gives an incorrect prediction if we try to set it at the extreme and verify with it the whole infinite universe.

What is that incorrect prediction you speak of?

Why don't we use Einsteinian relativity to calculate the gravity forces between stars and planets?
Why do we prefer Newton law?

They give the same answers.

However, if we use that curved space-time as a module for our whole universe we get unrealistic results as it gets to the extreme and therefore, the predictions are incorrect.

Again, what are those incorrect predictions? What experiment was it that demonstrated this?

there is no curved space-time in our real universe.

Demonstrably wrong, that's exactly what causes gravitational lensing.

Any radiation that had been emitted from point A should move to the infinity and never ever come back!!!

You have yet to demonstrate this.

If we set the Shell_theorem on the infinite universe it is clear to me that the average impact of the radiation should be exactly at a redshift of 1100 (although this redshift represents a distance of only 45 BLY). 

Based on what math? I'm also waiting for you to show the calculations that demonstrate that your model predicts a CMB temperature of 2.7 K.

Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)

Galaxies can't move at the speed of light, so your model breaks yet another law of physics.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

3. Acceleration of far end galaxies
...
Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)

Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.  Newton would do it that way, but without relativity, you have no black holes, and you seem to require them for your beliefs.

I fully agree. We need the relatively in order to measure the speed between galaxies.
However, I have used Newton in order to prove that based on "galaxies generations idea" we would get the real view that we see from our galaxy (which is similar to the view that we should see from any location in the whole universe).
Based on this idea, the universe is infinite and fix - so there is no need for any sort of space expansion (as we need for the BBT)
In our real Universe nearby galaxies are moving at a relatively low speed with regards to each other. some of them might move further away from each other and some are moving closer to each other. So, at any location in the whole universe, nearby galaxies are moving at a relatively low speed with each other.
However, as we go further away, the galaxies are moving away from each other at higher and higher speed. At the furthermost distance (that we can still see), the galaxies are moving away at ultra speed - almost at the speed of light.
We can't see galaxies at further locations, as they are moving away from us at a speed which is higher than the speed of light.
So, the "galaxies generation idea" can explain all of that without any need for "space expansion".

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:31:09
Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)
Galaxies can't move at the speed of light, so your model breaks yet another law of physics.

No, my model doesn't break any law.
Yes, based on Newton - they can move further away from each other at higher speed than light, if the distance is long enough.
All of that while the universe is infinite and fix!

In my explanation I have used 1370 generations of galaxies which are all moving in only one direction.
So, if we are located at the first galaxy (first generation) we should see a long direct line of 1370 galaxies, while each one is moving away from the nearby galaxies at a speed of 220Km/s.
Therefore, the second galaxy will move away from the first galaxy at a speed of 220Km/s. The third one at 440Km/s, the 10th at 2,200Km/s and so on till the last one which moves away at 301,400 Km/s. (based on Newton)
If for example we will stay at galaxy at the middle - (galaxy no 685), the furthest galaxy in one direction is moving at 150,700km/s while on the other side, the furthest galaxy also should move away at the same speed of 15,700 km/s.
However - I fully agree that we need to measure the velocities between the far end galaxies based on relativity. So, we won't get the same velocities as I have stated, but I just gave you the idea why at the far end we should see galaxies which are moving away from us at a very high speed (at least - based on newton).
Our universe is infinite in its size and in its age.
Theoretically, we can extend this direct line of galaxies generation to the infinity.
At any location that we will be (in this line), we should see that most of the nearby galaxies are moving at a relatively low speed with each other. (no more than few times the speed of 220Km/s - as the Milky Way and Andromeda). However, as we look at further away galaxies, the relatively speed gets higher. At some point of distance, the relative velocity is almost the speed of light.
If we monitor the speed between two galaxies with a separation of 100,000 generations, we should find that based on Newton they are moving away from each other at 220,000,000 Km/s.
So far I have only used in my explanation a direct line of "galaxies generations" while they all are moving in one direction.
Let's try now to understand what is the impact for new generation as they move also at the opposite direction.
We know that the second generation moves away from the first generation at a speed of 220Km/s.
However, if the third generation is moving in the direction of the first generation, it is actually moving at a -220K/s (with regards to that first generation). Therefore, the relative velocity between the first generation and that third generation is zero.
Actually Andromeda and triangulum is a perfect example for mother and her baby. Do we know at what speed they are moving away from each other?
Now, think about the possibility that each galaxy creates unlimited number of new galaxies which are moving in all directions.
I'm quite sure that if we will set this modeling in a computer, we should get the same view that we see from our location without any need for none realistic idea of "space expansion".
It is clear to me that all the nearby galaxies around the Milky way had been created by the Milky way.
I wonder how many galaxies had been created so far only by Andromeda and the Milky way.

With regards to the CMB

Not 2.7K, but sure, there would be one.

Thanks
So we agree that infinite Universe with the same density (as we see) should get a CMB.
I hope that we also agree about the black body radiation in the CMB.
The main issue that you have is regards to the redshift and amplitude.
With regards to the amplitude

The temperature of the heating elements is thousands of degrees.  Why are you proposing that the 10 Mpc enclosure only gets to 2.7 then?  To get that, energy would need to leave the box at a greater rate than it comes in from the outside.  Your assertion describes a universe of infinite age, which is a steady-state model of sorts.  In a steady-state model, the box argument works, but it predicts the wrong temperature.  Are you asserting that stars burn at about 2.7K?  If not, where is the heat going?

The heat of the stars and galaxies are going to the infinity, while the heat of the CMB is coming from the infinity of all directions. Therefore, the balance should set the CMB temp at 2.7K.
So, yes - my assertion describes a universe of infinite age and infinite size which is a steady-state model.

I agree with Fred Hoyle concept:
Fred Hoyle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949."
"Hoyle, unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe"
Hence, Fred Hoyle had estimated that galaxies have the ability to produce new matter, but he did not foresee the recent developments and the particle accelerator, and therefore he did not elaborate on how and where the mass could be formed.
He didn't know that the Milky Way's Giant Black Hole Spits Out Its Food:
http://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The new findings show definitively that most of the matter in the gas cloud surrounding the black hole is ejected out into space, which explains why it doesn't release light on its way in to be eaten."
This is an indication that new matter is ejected from the Milky Way supper massive black hole.
He also didn't know about the creation of matter and anti matter - the knowledge gained from the accelerator in Europe. Wikipedia: "in November 2010 reported that ATRAP group could develop a new method for producing anti-atoms - hydrogen. Method is based on the slowing down of anti-particles - protons and uniting with slow positrons."
So, as our scientists were able to produce anti-matter in this accelerator, it is clear that the supper massive rotatable black hole is the ultimate natural accelerator which can produce infinite quantity of new matter.

In any case, I agree with you that 10Mpc might be too small for the calculation.
However, as you claim that we can't use the shell theorem in our calculation:.

The shell theorem concerns being off-center in a shell of a uniform field or continuous radiation.
It does not concern anything about more distant things being equally redshifted, something empirically shown to be otherwise.  That difference is how they measure large distances.

So, how can we calculate the CMB in our infinite universe with infinite galaxies which are moving away from each other, while new born galaxies/new matter pop up everywhere in order to compensate (and therefore, the density is kept forever).

With regards to the redshift -

A universe with infinite age predicts no redshift at all.

Can you please explain why you don't see a possibility for redshift in the CMB for infinite Universe with infinite age, with far away galaxies that are moving away from each other at a speed which is much faster than a speed of light (based on Newton)?

[raviraj]

thanks for this information.

[Halc]

Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)

Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.

I fully agree. We need the relatively in order to measure the speed between galaxies.

We don't need relativity to measure them.  We need it to add 220 to 220 like you're doing there.

I have used Newton in order to prove that based on "galaxies generations idea" we would get the real view that we see from our galaxy

Add 1370 of them together like that and you get about ¾c.  Adding more will not get a recession velocity of more than c.  So your Newtonian conception of space does not correspond to 'the real view that we see from our galaxy'.
That conception of space was already falsified before we had the technology to notice the recession rate being discussed here.

We can't see galaxies at further locations, as they are moving away from us at a speed which is higher than the speed of light.

That doesn't follow.  We should be able to see all of them by your beliefs.  Light coming from any finite distance will get here in finite time.  High recession speed causes significant redshift but does not itself prevent light from leaving it.  I can hear a supersonic jet that is going away, no matter how fast it goes.  I just can't hear it coming, just like I would not be able to see a galaxy coming at me at greater than c.
And yes, some of those further galaxies are quite visible.

No, my model doesn't break any law.

We've pointed out it breaking just about every law there is.  You don't have a model, only a belief. The motions predicted by the laws which you claim not to violate differ from the motion you describe with your belief.  That makes for a non-model and a contradictory belief.

Yes, based on Newton - they can move further away from each other at higher speed than light, if the distance is long enough.

Newton does not have anything in his physics about distance making a difference.

In my explanation I have used 1370 generations of galaxies which are all moving in only one direction.

Not enough.  That gets only ¾c, and only if each generation emits one galaxy in the same direction and never one in another.

till the last one which moves away at 301,400 Km/s. (based on Newton)

But you said Newton was wrong in this respect:

Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.

I fully agree.

So you fully agree at the top of this post that Newton's way is wrong, and yet here you are doing it Newton's way.
You need to pick one.  If Newton's way is wrong, then Newton does not describe how the universe is.
If relativity is wrong, then a thing might move faster than light but would not be able to see anything behind it due to the inability of light to keep up.  Is that how you think the universe is?  You described it looking the same from everywhere, but things would look completely different from one location to the next due to the varying speed of the observer relative to light.  We (Earth, not even the galaxy) would be at the exact center of the universe because only here are we stationary.

If for example we will stay at galaxy at the middle - (galaxy no 685), the furthest galaxy in one direction is moving at 150,700km/s

Then it should see light moving at half speed in one direction and 1.5c in the other.  Star colors would be vastly shifted from one side of the sky to the other, although since Newton did not support the wave nature of light, he would not have suggested spectrum shift like that.  The night sky on one side would merely have appeared 3x brighter than the other side to an observer moving that fast.

while on the other side, the furthest galaxy also should move away at the same speed of 15,700 km/s.

No, it would have been stopped on the other side.  Speed is absolute under Newton's universe.  A stopped thing is stopped, and to an observer moving at 150,700 km/s, it is the observer that is moving, not the dim stationary thing he sees when he looks behind him.

However - I fully agree that we need to measure the velocities between the far end galaxies based on relativity.

Measurement of relative velocity is not different between the two views.  They both measure it as an increase of distance over time.  Both have the same units of say m/sec.

At some point of distance, the relative velocity is almost the speed of light.

Not almost.

If we monitor the speed between two galaxies with a separation of 100,000 generations, we should find that based on Newton they are moving away from each other at 220,000,000 Km/s.

What do you mean by 'monitor'?  Anyway, here you correctly state that under Newton, a galaxy (or any object) is not prevented from moving faster than light and thus light cannot catch up to such a thing, just like we observe with sound.
This contradicts your assertion that the view is the same from anywhere in the universe.  It only looks like this if you're nearly stopped, presumably something that happens near the center.

I'm quite sure that if we will set this modeling in a computer

I have little doubt that you can put such a belief in your head since you have no intention of actually doing it. Whenever you need to push a contradictory assertion, instead of attempting to demonstrate anything, it is always just 'clear to me'.
If you modeled it in a computer, you'd get brownian motion, similar to the expansion of ink when you put a drop of dye in calm water.  If the dye multiplies instead of just spreads, then the calm water will become infinitely dense with dye until it explodes.  If you model your belief on a computer and let it run long enough, there would be no point in space not crammed with matter getting ever more dense.  Light speed is not enough to get rid of it since it is coming in as fast as you can expel it.  Such is a consequence of violation of thermodynamic law.

It is clear to me that all the nearby galaxies around the Milky way had been created by the Milky way.

Case in point. If you can find a website that depicts a point you want to make, you post it, even if it requires being taken out of context. Points that are too wrong to even do that are just 'clear to me', which means they must be exceptionally wrong.

So we agree that infinite Universe with the same density (as we see) should get a CMB.

Depends on the model.  You've described several, some with and some without a CMB.

I hope that we also agree about the black body radiation in the CMB.

The CMB does not come from a body.

In a steady-state model, the box argument works, but it predicts the wrong temperature.  Are you asserting that stars burn at about 2.7K?  If not, where is the heat going?

The heat of the stars and galaxies are going to the infinity,

And equal amounts are coming from infinity.  That doesn't help.  The heating element of the oven is the temperature of a star, so the CMB would be that temperature.

while the heat of the CMB is coming from the infinity of all directions.

Yes.  That makes a perfect balance, and the CMB is star hot.

Therefore, the balance should set the CMB temp at 2.7K.

Stars don't burn at 2.7K.
If the CMB was 2.7K, then our box is radiating more heat than it is taking in from its neighbor, which means the other boxes are different, not uniform.

I agree with Fred Hoyle concept:
Fred Hoyle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949."
"Hoyle, unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe"

So you're going to jump onto the bandwagon of a theory that has been thoroughly falsified?  At least Hoyle knew something had to be postulated to prevent violation of conservation of energy.
Hoyle still envisioned an expanding universe, not a static Newtonian one.  An expanding steady-state model predicts no CMB, and it was the discovery of the CMB that really put a fatal nail in an alredy dead theory.

Hence, Fred Hoyle had estimated that galaxies have the ability to produce new matter

He did not.  He postulated new mass, but it didn't come from galaxies.

http://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The new findings show definitively that most of the matter in the gas cloud surrounding the black hole is ejected out into space, which explains why it doesn't release light on its way in to be eaten."
This is an indication that new matter is ejected from the Milky Way supper massive black hole.

There is no mention of 'new matter' in there.

it is clear that the supper massive rotatable black hole is the ultimate natural accelerator which can produce infinite quantity of new matter.

More for the 'it is clear' heap.

In any case, I agree with you that 10Mpc might be too small for the calculation.

Pick any size you like and the argument is the same.

So, how can we calculate the CMB in our infinite universe with infinite galaxies which are moving away from each other, while new born galaxies/new matter pop up everywhere in order to compensate (and therefore, the density is kept forever).

Depends on you model.
If you hold to Newton's non-expanding space, then the CMB should be the temperature of a star since there is nowhere you can look that doesn't hit one if you go far enough.
If space is expanding, then distant things are  redshifted to arbitrarily near 0°K long before their light can reach us.  There would be no CMB unless there was something super bright at a finite distance. Hoyle's steady state idea said it looks the same from anywhere at any time, so no super bright thing at some finite distance. The big bang posits the bright thing (an event more than an object) at a finite distance (due to a finite age of the universe). The temperature of the CMB would be computed as the temperature (3000k) at which hydrogen atoms can form from free protons and electrons, divided by the red-shift computed (1100) for the finite distance to the material which emitted that light.

A universe with infinite age predicts no redshift at all.

Can you please explain why you don't see a possibility for redshift in the CMB for infinite Universe with infinite age

That was not clearly worded on my part.  A non-expanding universe with infinite age predicts no average redshift.  Objects still move at random velocities in all directions, so some will be redshifted and as many would be blue shifted.  Any expanding universe, finite or infinite age will exhibit a general recession of all objects which will subsequently manifest as a redshift in general accordance with distance.

with far away galaxies that are moving away from each other at a speed which is much faster than a speed of light (based on Newton)?

Based on Newton, if galaxies moved faster than light, then light would not be able to keep up with them and one would only be able to observe things in one direction but not the other.

[Colin2B]

thanks for this information.

Did you really only post this so folks would look at your website??
Well, they won’t look anymore as we have changed it to ours, and as a special bonus we have awarded you a ban. Enjoy

[Kryptid]

No, my model doesn't break any law.

If you posit that galaxies can move faster than light, then yes, you are breaking a law of physics.

Yes, based on Newton - they can move further away from each other at higher speed than light, if the distance is long enough.

According to Einstein, they can't. It takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass up to the speed of light. How do you propose to give a galaxy more than infinite energy so that it can go faster than light?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

According to Einstein, they can't. It takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass up to the speed of light. How do you propose to give a galaxy more than infinite energy so that it can go faster than light?

Einstein is very clever and he is fully correct.
I fully agree with him that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass up to the speed of light.
However, he didn't consider the scenario which I have offered.
Based on my theory, any baby galaxy is ejected from its mother galaxy at only 220Km/s.
This is very normal as most of the stars are ejected from the galaxy at that range of speed.
So, I assume that Einstein has no problem with that.
However, I discuss about ejection over ejection over... ejection.
Each ejection represents a speed of only 220 Km/s.
Let me use the following example-
Let's assume that we can create a rocket with 1370 stages.
So, the main rocket carries 1369 rockets. The second rocket carries 1368 rockets,.... the last one doesn't carry any more rockets.
It works as follow:
We launch the main rocket from a fixed point in space. As it gain a speed of 220Km/s, it launches the second rocket. As the second rocket gain a speed of 220Km/s with regards to the main rocket, it launches the third rocket.
So, let me ask you the following:
Do you agree that the speed of the second rocket (at the moment of launching the third rocket) is 440 Km/s with regards to the fixed starting point?
If so, let's continue with the launching process with the 4th 5th and the other entire rockets till the last one.
So, do you see any violation of law in this process?
What is the relative velocity between the fixed point in space to the last rocket?
What Einstein might say about it?
Why can't we add all the velocities?
I really don't see any violation in law.

[Halc]

Most of your post was just repetition again, but I have a few comments.

Based on my theory, any baby galaxy is ejected from its mother galaxy at only 220Km/s.

How do you compute this figure? Other than pulling it out of, um, somewhere....
It actually can be computed from prior things which 'are clear to you', but I suspect you're not up to the math involved.  It doesn't work out to 220, hence my asking.

It seems to be awful fast.  Hubble's law says things need to be over 3 Mpc away before they recede at that rate.  The average rate of recession of things closer than that is much less.

So, I assume that Einstein has no problem with that.

Please don't suggest that Einstein would have no problem with anything you've stated.  You contradict him with every post.

Let me use the following example-
Let's assume that we can create a rocket with 1370 stages.
So, the main rocket carries 1369 rockets. The second rocket carries 1368 rockets,.... the last one doesn't carry any more rockets.
It works as follow:
We launch the main rocket from a fixed point in space. As it gain a speed of 220Km/s, it launches the second rocket. As the second rocket gain a speed of 220Km/s with regards to the main rocket, it launches the third rocket.
So, let me ask you the following:
Do you agree that the speed of the second rocket (at the moment of launching the third rocket) is 440 Km/s with regards to the fixed starting point?

No. That's the whole point. Velocities don't add like that, at least not in the last 100 years. You've displayed no understanding of Newton's physics, so how should I expect you to understand Einstein's?

What is the relative velocity between the fixed point in space to the last rocket?

¾c (approximately), relative to the frame in which the ship was initially stationary.  There are no fixed points in space, just fixed points in spacetime, and velocity is undefined relative to one of those.

What Einstein might say about it?

That is what he says.

Why can't we add all the velocities?

We can, just not the way you're doing it.  You're describing the addition of proper velocity, where each stage accelerates by 220 km/s relative to the frame where it's engine gets lit.  From the pilot's point of view, accelerating at say 1G, each stage burns for just over 6 hours, when the next one kicks in.  After 1370 stages (not quite a year, measured on the pilot's clock), he's moving at ¾c relative to his starting frame.

You can tack on as many stages as you like, but you'll never get to light speed.  The guy riding in front will feel acceleration forever, never dropping off.

I really don't see any violation in law.

Despite the fact that the violations are point out over and over? Yes, I notice that you just don't see things you don't want to see. Ignoring contradictions because you find them inconvenient is not scientific, nor even rational thought.