[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's focus on Energy

With regards to the BBT:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:21:15
Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:
1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.

That's not a contradiction.
the simple answer is " we don't know". It's not as if we were there at the time taking measurements.

Well, if you don't know abut the source of energy for the BBT, than how can you support this theory?

Well, for one, the BBT does not attempt to explain from where everything came. Secondly, it seems the total energy of the universe is zero, so there's no need for a source of zero energy.

If the BBT does not attempt to explain from where everything came, than again - this theory has no valid base.
What do you mean by: "there's no need for a source of zero energy"
The BBT must get energy to start the whole process.
It was clearly stated that the initial state of the BBT was "very high-density and high-temperature"
So, they clearly start with energy and that source of energy is clearly not zero
Please read my following message about the BBT energy scource:

7. Energy source for the BBT
Why our scientists don't try to explain the scenario before the BBT?
Could it be that there was something before the Big bang or just nothing?
I agree to accept the idea that something could be created out of nothing.
Darwin has told us that one living cell could be the source for the whole variety of life that we see. Therefore, we all can agree that first living cell could be created out of nothing. However, how can we agree that everything could be created at the same moment from nothing or even from something if our universe is infinite?
The BBT doesn't explain what is the source of energy for all the matter in the Universe.
It is just stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high-density and high-temperature"
So, what is the source for that high density and high temperature?
What is the meaning of high density?
Density of what? Is it some sort of a matter? If so, than why do we need the Big bang if the matter is already there? How any sort of density can be converted into real matter by bang without any energy transformation as electromagnetic field?
Please be aware - Not even one word about energy in the BBT…
How could it be that our scientists speak on the name of science and the first law of thermodynamics (when it comes to different theory), while they don't have a basic clue for the source of energy (or high density) for the BBT activity?

So, how can you all claim that the BBT is valid while you have no clue about its source of energy?
I'm electronic design engineer.
When I start any design, the first question is - what is the source of energy.
Somehow, our scientists have totally skipped that key question.
If those scientists will design an aircraft without any idea for the source of its energy, than how it could move even one centimeter?
They speak about the energy of "everything", while they can't even explain the source of energy of "something".
Our scientists want us to believe that the whole energy for the whole universe - (even for infinite universe) was there before the bang, while they have no clue about the source for that energy.
Actually, they can't even explain the source of energy that is requested for one Atom.
Let's read again the following answer:
"the total energy of the universe is zero, so there's no need for a source of zero energy"
How can they generate even one atom if the total energy of the universe is zero?

With regards to Atom creation:
Let's assume that you need to design a process to generate one atom
Do you have any idea for the requested energy?
Einstein have told us:
E = M c^2
So, the energy of mass M should be higher than this mass by c^2
Now try to calculate the energy that is requested for just one star as our sun.
Do you see any possibility to get that energy while the total energy of the universe is zero?

In any case, even if we have some energy, there must be a process to convert energy to particle/atom/molecular
That process could work only at accelerator as we see at CERN:
https://home.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex
"The accelerator complex at CERN is a succession of machines that accelerate particles to increasingly higher energies."

So if we wish to generate any sort of particle and than convert it to all list of atoms and molecular as water, we must use real accelerator with embedded magnetic power.
The BBT doesn't offer any magnetic accelerator.
However, we have unlimited numbers of those kind of accelerators in our Universe.
We call them accretion disc, but they are the biggest magnetic accelerators in the Universe.
We see there particles orbiting at almost a speed of light in a hot plasma of 10^9 c.
We also see that real Atoms and molecular are ejected outwards from that magnetic accelerator.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation about that creation process.
It also gives a clear explanation about the energy source that is requested for that activity:
I have clearly explained the energy source for the mass creation process at the accretion disc:

Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

So now.
Let's assume that you have no idea about BBT or theory D.
Which kind of theory gives answer for the source of new energy?
Which kind of theory gives answer for how that new energy can be transformed into real particles/atoms/molecular?
Is it BBT or Theory D

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I would like to add the following:
The basic idea in the BBT of the first creation of matter could be perfectly OK.
Somehow or someway the Universe had to start with some matter.
All is needed is just one BH.
So, the BBT must explain the first creation of something - not everything.
That something is just a single/first BH that has the ability to create new particles in its Photon sphere as was explained:

15. Photon Sphere
I'm really excited. I have just found an article which confirms the creation zone of new particles between the accretion ring and the event horizon.
This aria is called – Photon sphere (I was not aware about that name).
Please look at the following image:
https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/black-hole.cfm
It is stated:
"Just outside the event horizon of the BH, gravity is strong enough to bend their paths so that we see a bright ring surrounding a roughly circular dark shadow."
However, they think that this radiation is coming from the outwards accretion disc or actually from the plasma in that accretion disc:
"Although the black hole itself is dark, photons are emitted from nearby hot plasma in jets or an accretion disc."
"As charged particles go around, they accelerate, causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation."
This is a severe mistake.
As Newton has told us very clear in his cannon ball experimental, matter that moves to lower radius, can't increase the orbital velocity and can't get higher orbital acceleration.
Therefore, the only way to generate this radiation between the event horizon to the innermost accretion ring, is by new created particle pairs at the photon sphere.
Due to the location of that zone it is also clear that the orbital velocity should be much higher than just 0.3c (as it is in the accretion disc). I would assume that the orbital velocity at the Photon sphere is almost as high as the speed of light.
The innermost accretion ring is called – innermost stable orbit. That shows that our scientists see the difference between the stable orbit at the innermost excretion ring to the aria of the new pair production that is called Photon sphere.
They also claim that the plasma in the accretion disc is made of broken Atoms - free electrons and nuclei.
"Black holes trap nearby gases in their gravitational pull and whip them around in an orbit at immense speeds. The gas material gets very hot and breaks apart into its constituent positive nuclei and negative electrons, not bound together as an atom. This hot mass of free electrons and nuclei is called a plasma."
But they don't understand that the process works the other way. The excretion disc doesn't break down the atoms to positive nuclei and negative electrons in that plasma. If that was the case, than as most of that matter is ejected outwards, we should see mainly broken atoms that are ejected from the excretion disc. However, we mainly see real Atoms and molecular that are ejected from the excretion disc. That ejected matter is actually ejected upwards/downwards as Twin molecular jet stream.
Therefore, the excretion disc is actually forming new Atoms and molecular from the new created particles that are ejected to that aria from the Photon sphere.

Once that first BH is created, than Theory D can take place and easily explain the evolvement of the whole infinite Universe from this single BH.

[Bored chemist]

Well, if you don't know abut the source of energy for the BBT, than how can you support this theory?

OK, setting aside the fact that no energy is required- per Halc's comment earlier, the answer to your question is "just fine thanks. There's no contradiction there".

Your comment is like saying, "How can you believe in honey if you can't explain how bees fly?"

Do you not see how that's absurd?
There is evidence of the existence of honey, regardless of any level of ignorance on how it comes to exist.

There is evidence of the big bang, even if we don't know the details of how it exists.

And that's why this thread has posts like this.

Yes I do

LOL, you don't even understand how conservation of energy works.

[jeffreyH]

Dave, matey, get a girlfriend.

[Kryptid]

Once that first BH is created

And how did that happen?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Once that first BH is created

And how did that happen?

Dear Kryptid
As usual, you ask me a clever question - and you force me to make some more homework.
If one day I will get a reward for my discovery, I insist that you and Halc will share it with me.
You both have really helped me with this work.

In order to find a solution for your question, I have looked at the web and found the following article:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
"The black hole is 13 billion light years from Earth, meaning that it formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang when stars were only just beginning to take shape".
"Professor Simcoe said: "If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses – it's unrealistic"
"The discovery put the Big Bang theory in doubt"
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
.

This clear observation proves that the BBT is just incorrect.
In the same token, based on Theory D it was expected to see many  BHs at any distance from us.
Therefore, this observation confirms theory D.
If we had the correct technology, we should see BHs at 20 BLY away, 1,000 BLY and even one Million BYL away.
Actually, this one is relatively quite young BH comparing to the real age of our Universe

Please be aware that this observation was made in 2017. So, our scientists already know about this problem for the last three years.
However, as was accepted, our science community still supports the BBT. They will do whatever is needed to hold the BBT forever and ever and under any kind of contradiction.

In any case, with regards to your question -
It is clear that somehow energy is needed to create the first BH.
Therefore, the basic idea from the BBT of creating something due to a big bang could be perfectly OK.
However, the BBT is based on assumptions over assumptions. You take one and the whole theory is none relevant.
For example – The BBT is based on the assumption that our universe is homogeneous, and isotropic. This is incorrect. Not in small scale and not in large scale. The assumption that the energy of the BBT was uniformly distributed everywhere and the net gravitational potential was therefore near zero, and there was no one point to which everything could collapse is just incorrect.
Hence, if there was a big bang or any sort of bang, everything should collapse to one point at the same moment of the bang. That would create the first BH. It might be a tinny BH, however it must spin. The spinning velocity would generate the requested magnetic field that is needed to create new particles pair at the photon sphere. Once the photon sphere stars to generate new partials pair, the magnetic accelerator (the accretion disc) starts its mission to form the first New Hydrogen atom in whole Universe.
So, there is a big difference between the BBT and theory D.
Based on the BBT, the Big Bang should create everything. However, based on theory D just something as a BH should be good enough..

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Expansion

Based on theory D, there is no need to set any space Expansion. We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.
So how it really works:
Once upon a time a new Born BH had arrived to our Infinite Universe. It was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space.
Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field to create new particle pairs at the Photon Sphere.  .
One particle from those new created pair had been eaten by this first BH, while the opposite charged particle had been ejected outwards to the magnetic accelerator that we call now - accretion disc..
This BH will increase its mass and energy over time. It will also be converted to the first Massive BH Hosting a dwarf galaxy. Later on it will be converted to a SMBH hosting a mighty spiral galaxy as the Milky Way.
It will generate new atoms, molecular, Asteroids, Moons, Planets, Stars and even it own baby BHs.
So, this first BH will become the mother the first matter in the Universe.
As we all know - Mothers do not eat their children. Therefore, also this first BH has no intention or need to eat its Babies.
Over time all the new created matter, stars BH's…will be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
Our milky way acts as one of the biggest stars sprinkler in the Universe. Therefore we see more stars outside the galaxy than in the galaxy.
Ejection Velocity (Ve) – The average velocity of the ejected Stars/BHs from the Galaxy.
Each one of the second generation baby BHs will start to create new matter and over time it will be converted to MBH. At that time it might host a new dwarf galaxy while creating other new baby BHs.
Maturity Time (Tm) - The time that it takes to a new born BH till it starts to generate its own baby BHs. I assume that by that time it will host a dwarf galaxy and it will drift away from its Mother galaxy at Ve velocity.
Let's assume that all the new babies are drifting away at the same line direction.
So, the second generation of BHs are drifting away from the first BH at Ve. The next generation will drift away from the first BH at 2Ve After n generation, the relative velocity between should be nVe.
Based on my calculation:
Let's assume that Ve is equal to the orbital velocity of our Sun around the Galaxy = 220 Km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Therefore, after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first galaxy).
We can see it as a rocket over rocket over….rocket. 1370 times.
It will take it = Te * 1370 generations
Therefore, as far as we look, we see that galaxies are drifting at a faster velocity from us.
There is no limit for that velocity.
After m * 1370 generations, the relative velocity will be M times the speed of light.
As the Universe is infinite, at the far end there are galaxies that are drifting away from us at almost infinite speed.
However, please be aware that new born BHs are ejected away in all directions. Therefore, in any nearby aria we see that the galaxies are moving in all directions.
Therefore, there is no need to space expansion or dark energy to explain the ultra velocity of the far end galaxies.
We only need to understand, that it is achievable after long enough time.
There is a clear observation for the ejection process. We see that Triangulum (relatively small spiral galaxy – 40 Billion stars)  is directly drifting away from it mother Andromeda (A supper massive spiral galaxy with about one Million Billion stars)
As they are drifting away from each other, they set hydrogen "bridge" between them:
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."

This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.

[Bored chemist]

Based on theory

Who cares?
Theory D is based on a false start.

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

Non sequitur.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

Non sequitur.

Why don't you read my answer:

There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.

Didn't you see my reply at:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78586.0

Let's focus on the Black body radiation in the CMB:
Black Body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
 
"An ideal body is now defined, called a blackbody. A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.[10]"
In the article it is also stated that:
"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
 
1.This insulated enclosure could be a box at any size. As long as it is insulated enclosure  box, we should get the Black body radiation inside that box.  Let's assume that we can set a box of isolated enclosure in the open space at the size of 1BLY.  The Milky way will be located inside that box. It is quite clear that the internal radiation will be a black body radiation.
 
2. Let's set 1000 1BLY boxes next to each with a similar density. So, we get a bar of 1000BLY. As the radiation at each 1BLY box is black body, than if we eliminate the walls between the boxes in that bar, we still should get a black body radiation inside that 1000 BLY Bar. So, as long as the 1000Bly bar is isolated enclosure  than we must get the black body radiation..
 
3. Now, let's add to this bar an infinite no of 1BLY boxes, and eliminate the walls between the boxes, Therefore,  we should get an infinite bar (with the same density at any location in the bar). In this case it is clear that as long the infinite bar is still isolated enclosure  we should get a black body radiation in that bar.
 
4. However, as it goes to the infinity, it is clear that even if we open the walls of the last end box (which is located at the infinity), it shouldn't have any negative impact on the internal black body radiation in that bar (assuming that we measure the radiation far enough from that last open walls). So, we have got an infinite bar with open ended walls which still has an internal black body radiation. Let's call it B- bar.
 
5. If we now set an infinite number of B- bar, one above the other. We should get an infinite rectangle. We already know that this infinite rectangle has an open ended (Left & right) and it has a black body radiation.
In the same token, if we open the Up/down edges (at the infinity) we still should have a black body radiation in that infinite rectangle. Let's call it C-rectangle
 
6. If we set an infinite number of C- rectangle, one after the other. We should get an infinite cube (It goes to the infinity in all directions.) This cube goes to the infinity and has an open ended at all directions.
So, technically, there is no end for this cube, it is an infinite cube and therefore it should hold an internal black body radiation.
 
Conclusions:

The black body radiation in our Universe proves that it MUST be infinite.
Any location at this universe is located at the infinity from any edge. Therefore, any location in that universe could be considered as a center. In the same token we should get a black body radiation at any point.

Therefore, Kryptid is fully correct in his following message:

As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center".

However, that could be correct ONLY if our universe is infinite.

Lets try to understand how black body radiation works at the Sun.
It is quite clear that as long as the radiation is at the surface of the Sun, than it has a black body radiation.
However, as it is emitted from the Sun, the black body radiation is lost.
Therefore, the surface of the Sun acts as isolated enclosure.
In the same token, also in atmosphere of our planet we find a black body radiation.
So, that Atmosphere is another example of black body radiation in isolated enclosure .

Therefore, our universe could hold black body radiation ONLY in the following conditions:
1.   If it is Finite – It must be in isolated enclosure. Therefore, there must be walls around the Universe. What is the chance for that?
2.   If it is Infinite – As I have proved, infinite Universe acts as a finite Universe in isolated enclosure.
Conclusion:
The ONLY possibility to see a black body radiation in the CMB is when the Universe is INFINITE

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Black body radiation:

Photosphere  is a perfect example for black body radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
As you can see in that image, "The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."
In other words:
The photons of light would be nearly in thermal equilibrium and carry a Black body radiation ONLY if most of them won't escape into the open space.
Hence, only if most of the photons in that photosphere will be forced to bounce back from the outer edge of the photosphere, they could carry a black body radiation.
Therefore, The photosphere (Blow aria),represents a finite aria with edges/boundaries that prevent from the photons from escaping to the open space. As long as most of the photons stay at that aria they will be nearly in thermal equilibrium and they would carry a Black body radiation.
We could cover this photosphere with one more layer of photosphere. In this case, the photons of light in each layer will also be nearly thermal equilibrium. Therefore, in both layers we should see a black body radiation.
If we eliminate the border between them, we still should get the black body radiation in the combined aria.
Theoretically, we could add infinite no of photospheres and get a black body radiation inside that aria.

However, infinite no of photospheres means - infinite sphere. So, if we have infinite photosphere we should get a black body radiation without any need form the photons to bounce back from the boundary of this infinite photosphere.
This shows that as our universe carries a black body radiation in its CMB, than it must be INFINITE.

Now, let's read the explanation about the black body radiation in the BBT:
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background"
"The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space. It is an important source of data on the early universe because it is the oldest electromagnetic radiation in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark."

So, the main idea in the BBT is that The CMB is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe.
However, we already know that in order for that early stage to generate a black body radiation, most of the photons in that stage, should be reflected inwards by some sort of boundary.
We already know that without an outwards boundary, there is no reflection. No reflection means no photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium and no black-body radiation.
Therefore, if we consider that early stage as some sort of photosphere that prevents from most of the photons to escape outwards, that early stage will carry a black body radiation.
However, we know that after this early stage, the inflation and expansion took place.
In those two activities, the photons had no boundary any more.
Hence, there is no boundary that could force most of the photons to bounce back.
Without it, the photons of light would not be in thermal equilibrium and therefore, they wouldn't carry a Black body radiation any more.
Therefore, the assumption that we see today the CMB that carry a black body radiation due to activity that took place 13.8 BY ago (Just after the early stage, while all of the photons escape outwards) and the Universe is finite without boundary - is a simple fantasy..

Conclusion:
An activity that took place 13.8 BY ago couldn't have any impact on the current measured CMB.
This CMB is the electromagnetic radiation of our current Universe.
As it carries a black body radiation it proves that our Universe must be infinite.

[Kryptid]

Non-sequiturs piled on top of non-sequiturs...

[Bored chemist]

Why don't you read my answer:

Because you put put in the wrong place (i.e. not in this thread).
 
But now that I have read it, it doesn't actually answer the point.
I can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame.
That does not mean that a candle flame is infinitely large.


You miss the point of the "small hole in a container" as  BBR source, the walls of the container have to do the emitting and the radiation has to be observed from outside.

So this

The Milky way will be located inside that box. It is quite clear that the internal radiation will be a black body radiation.

is just wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Non-sequiturs piled on top of non-sequiturs...

Dear Kryptid

You have stated clearly in the past that our scientists don't know the real size of our Universe.
So, how can you support any sort of theory about the Universe without that key information?
If you had been requested to develop an engine to some airplane, won't you first ask about the size of that airplane?
Do you think that an engine for a toy airplane would fit to Boeing 747 and vice versa?
How our scientists wish to explain how the Universe works, while they don't have any clue about its real size?
The BBT had been developed about 70 years ago, while our scientists were positively sure that our universe is finite and compact. Therefore, the BBT had started from the idea of "singularity".
Based on this theory the age of our Universe is 13.8 BLY.
However, now we have clear observation that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
"The black hole is 13 billion light years from Earth, meaning that it formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang when stars were only just beginning to take shape".
"Professor Simcoe said: "If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses – it's unrealistic"
"The discovery put the Big Bang theory in doubt"
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”

You have stated that the BBT fully meets all the Observations.
However, this observation proves that the BBT is wrong.
So, why don't you wish to accept this clear observation that knocks down the BBT?

Don't you agree that in order to offer any sort of theory for our Universe we first must understand the real size of the Universe. How can we estimate the age of the Universe without knowing its size?

Therefore, the first stage in theory D was to estimate the size of the Universe.
As the conclusion was that the Universe is infinite than its age also must be infinite.
Don't you agree that the BBT is none relevant for the size/age of infinite Universe?
If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?
If you still don't know its size, than how do you know for sure that the Universe is not infinite?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You miss the point of the "small hole in a container" as  BBR source, the walls of the container have to do the emitting and the radiation has to be observed from outside.

Sorry
You miss the whole point of Black body radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. "
So, in order to get the black body radiation, the light entering the hole is reflected at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge.
Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation without negatively impact the creation of the black body spectrum due to the internal reflections:
Please see one more example for: "An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body_realization.svg
Again, in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.
Is it clear to you by now?

I can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame.

Sure, you can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame, but only if around that flame there is some sort of photosphere. I assume that this photosphere is created by the air around the flame due to the high temp of the flame. If we could eliminate this photosphere, we won't get any BBR in that flame.
We can consider also the sun as some sort of a huge candle light.
So, as long as around the Sun or around the candle flame there is a photosphere, we should get the BBR.
However, it is important to highlight that the photosphere around the candle flame or around the sun is used as some sort of internal surfaces that reflects internally the light that is generated by those objects.

That does not mean that a candle flame is infinitely large.

Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.
So, if we see a radiation with a BBR it proves that there must be some sort of photosphere around the light source.
Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:
1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it
2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.
As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB

[Bored chemist]

Is it clear to you by now?

It was clear to me when I Learned it 30 years or more ago.

Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?

[Bored chemist]

Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.

No
What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It was clear to me when I Learned it 30 years or more ago.

Perfect.
So you do understand that:

in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.

And you also understand that:

Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation

Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBR
So how can you claim that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container/cavity?:

Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?

It is stated clearly that: "a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation".

With regards to the different effective temperature:
Actually, if we monitor the surface temperature of the sun we should find temporarily arias/spots with different temperatures.
That doesn't negatively impact the BBR of the Sun.

If the idea of photosphere was also clear to you, why do you ask the following question:

Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.

No
What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?

We do not discuss about "red hot iron bar" so what do you want to show in this question?
Could it be that the idea of "photosphere" is still not fully clear to you?
The "photosphere" was clearly explained by Wiki:

Photosphere  is a perfect example for black body radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
"The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."

[Kryptid]

If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?

You don't seem to know what a non-sequitur is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

Trying to get me to tell you about the real size of the Universe in order to counter your claims is an example of shifting the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof It is not up to others to falsify your idea. It is up to you to support it.

[Bored chemist]

We do not discuss about "red hot iron bar" so what do you want to show in this question?

Yes we did.
It's just that you didn't understand the thing we were discussing.
"Red hot" means something that's emitting BBR in the range where it's just about hot enough to start producing visible radiation.

So. like a candle flame, a red hot iron mar (or a toaster, if you like) is a source of black boy radiation.

So, once again....

What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBR

Which part of "no" do you not understand?