[Bored chemist]

If you need to go from LA to NY don't you need to know the distance before you start your first step?

Ask Columbus.

How can you claim something that is totally incorrect?

I should ask you the same question.

In the article it was stated clearly:
Entiere Universe - "the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown", So they don't know its size

Yes, but, by implication, they know it has a size- which is the same as saying it is not infinite.

But that's not the point; WIKI can be wrong, so what it says isn't really important.
What matters is that it goes dark at night.
That simple fact is one of the most important observations in cosmology.
And you don't understand it because you are not prepared to do your homework.

Can you please explain about those special boundary or wall around our entire Universe/Multiverse?

No. I can't tell you anything about it, apart from the fact that it exists (and that this was known over 100 years before the BBT was introduced).

However, based on real observation, I have proved that the BBT is totally wrong explanation

No.
You have made a false assertion.
Because, in fact, it goes dark at night.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

But that's not the point; WIKI can be wrong, so what it says isn't really important.

Is it real?
If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered
Next time, please try to read the whole article before you offer it to support your ideas

What matters is that it goes dark at night.
That simple fact is one of the most important observations in cosmology.
And you don't understand it because you are not prepared to do your homework.

The assumption that an infinite Universe could keep the light during the night is a poor fiction.
We actually get a direct light only from galaxies that are drifting away from us at a velocity which is less than a speed of light.
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
If we will draw a direct line to any direction up to the infinity, we technically should find only in this line an infinite no of galaxies. However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Therefore, we can't see them. Only 0.0..1 are located at the observable aria in our Universe.
So, the total galaxies in that line which are still located in the "observable aria" are quite neglected and therefore it goes dark at night.
Is it clear?

[Bored chemist]

If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered

How can I say sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong?
Simple.
Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong.
But the important thing to do is think.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.

In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.

Is it clear?

Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.

You say "

Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.

but you don't understand what it means.
There is a reason for that 13 Bly  figure.
It's the age of the universe times the speed of light,.
But you keep trying to insist on a universe that has been here "forever"- you say it has infinite age.

herefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

Well, if it was infinitely old then there would have been an infinite time for the light to get to us (not a mere 13Ga).
So, along the line you talked about, there would be a visible star.

You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about a calculation based on the age of the universe being 13 billion years, and then say it shows that the universe is infinitely old.

However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light.

That's interesting.
They are moving away from us at huge speed. They have been doing so for an infinite time.
They should all have gone away.
The sky should be devoid of stars.
But it isn't.

Seriously, clever people worked this out a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
 The universe can not have the properties you ascribed to it here

our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

[Kryptid]

Do you mean that the BBT should give us an explanation ONLY for the observable universe?

No, it's just that we have no other choice. We can never know the full size of the Universe because we can never observe it. If you can't observe it, then you can't test hypotheses about it. If you can't test hypotheses, then you can't do science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you mean that the BBT should give us an explanation ONLY for the observable universe?

No, it's just that we have no other choice.

Yes we have much better choice.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation almost for any aspect in our entire Universe.
For example – I was not aware about that problem that was just highlighted by Bored chemist:

Seriously, clever people worked this out a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

"In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840), also known as the "dark night sky paradox","
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.

We can never know the full size of the Universe because we can never observe it.

Yes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:
1. Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. In a finite Universe the temperature should be lower as we get closer to the edge. The only solution for that is Infinite Universe. At that Universe, any point acts as a center
2. Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.
3. Red shift - Z=1100 this is the MOST important observation and quite challenging for me.
The red shift value for the farthest galaxy is less than 9. However, when it comes to the CMB we get a fix red shift at z=1100. That shows that somehow we get the Cosmic Microwave Background also from galaxies that are so far away that we don't see their light any more. So, somehow the CMB radiation from very far away galaxies can cross the distance and get to us, while their light had totally lost long ago. This is one challenge as the speed of the radiation is actually the same speed as light. Therefore, there must be some advantage in that movement of the CMB radiation in space as it can cross longer distances than the light itself.
The other issue is the fixed value of Z=1100. As the CMB is getting from wide spectrum of galaxies at any distance from us, I would expect to see that wide spectrum also in the CMB red shift. So, the CMB should include wide range of red shift. Let's assume from almost zero to more than just 1100.
I try to imagine infinite Universe and I can't understand why it stuck exactly at z = 1100. Why don't we see in the red shift spectrum higher and lower z values? Therefore, I have stated that this fixed factor represents a challenge for me.

[Kryptid]

Yes we have much better choice.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation almost for any aspect in our entire Universe.

No, what I mean is that we have no choice but to base our models on the observable Universe. It's the only part of the Universe that we can make observations of to test hypotheses.

Yes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:
1. Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. In a finite Universe the temperature should be lower as we get closer to the edge. The only solution for that is Infinite Universe. At that Universe, any point acts as a center

Bored Chemist already explained why this is wrong.

[Bored chemist]

However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.

That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".

Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. I

Lie 1

Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.

Lie 2

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:
1. Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. In a finite Universe the temperature should be lower as we get closer to the edge. The only solution for that is Infinite Universe. At that Universe, any point acts as a center

Bored Chemist already explained why this is wrong.

CMB

Let me explain why the BBT wouldn't be able to generate the CMB that we see today:
1. Bang - A bang by itself can't generate any black body radiation. We should all agree with that. Actually even our scientists do not claim for it. They say that the CMB radiation took place during the "time of photon decoupling"  in the recombination epoch. It took place when the temperature of the universe drops below 3000 K or so, when the Universe is ~ 200,000 years old,
Please see some information in order to justify that statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling."
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr222/Cosmo/Early/recomb.html
When the temperature of the universe drops below 3000 K or so, when the Universe is ~ 200,000 years old, the electrons and nuclei combine to form atoms. No free electrons are running around, so photons can free stream and matter decouples from radiation. This is a fundamentally important time in the Universe's history: called the epoch of recombination. The Universe becomes transparent, we see it as the microwave background, and structure can start to form...

However, by that time our yong universe was already long after the inflation time and deep into the expantion. Therefore, at that time (200,000 years after the Big Bang) it was already expanding at almost the speed of light. Therefore, it acts as a container that its walls are moving away at the speed of light.
In this condition, there is no way to generate any sort of Black body radiation.
In order to set a Black body radiation we must have a back body radiator as: cavity, cellar Oven or container.
The radiation must bounces around inside the back body radiator to form the black body radiation.
As I have already explained, by the time that the CM had been created, the universe was already expanding at the speed of light. Therefore, the radiation that was created due to the  photon decoupling could not bounce back from the "walls of the early Universe (due to the expansion of the Universe), therefore, technically they couldn't create any BBR.

Therefore, there is a severe contradiction in the BB theory.
In one hand it is stated that the "expansion" have set the photon decoupling process:
"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since.... since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time."
However that same expansion also have killed any possibility for BBR.
Therefore, there must be a Fatal error in the BBT.
This is actually just element why the CMB that we see today can't be a created by the BBT.
So let me summarize few key points:
1. Our universe has no walls around it. This is a pure fiction. Our scientists do not claim for that and even in the BT they do not discuss about it. Therefore, at any given moment the expended Universe couldn't be considered as a black body radiator.
2.  "time of photon decoupling"  - that was almost a brief moment in the whole universe process. If you wish to believe that this exactly brief moment could continue to ring in our Universe forever and ever, you are dreaming.
Why the Bang itself isn't ringing? It has much more power and energy that this "poor" photon decoupling process.
So, this is just a fiction. It is just so unrealistic to take a brief moment in the life process of our Universe and claim that a specific moment could continue to ring forever.
3. Radiation - How could we get any sort of radiation from that time? We know that the radiation is moving at the speed of light. The Universe is also expanding at the speed of light. So, even if there was were walls all around our Universe, that radiation from the "photon decoupling time" can't technically bounce back to us from the walls of the expanding universe. Therefore, there is no way to get this radiation even if there was a constant source of that photon decoupling process from day one of the Universe.
3. Same CMB Radiation from all directions - Let's assume that somehow the Photon rings forever and ever. Let's also assume that somehow our universe has some imaginary walls all around. Lets also assume that although the photon is moving at the same speed of light at those imaginary walls than somehow some of the photons cloud bounced back from those walls. Let's also assume that due to some "abra cadabra" they have got their BBR.
However, based on simple physics law, we should get the amplitude based on the distance from those imaginary walls. We are clearly not at the center of the Universe. So, how could it be that we get exactly the same amplitude from all directions?
4. Red Shift - Any physics law is based on the idea that Red shift should gives a clear indication for a distance from the source of point. You have taken that z=1100 at the CMB and translate it to time from the photon decoupling process. You have totally ignored the distance and the way that the photon had to cross from its creation till the moment that it arrived to us.

Conclusion
The assumption that the CMB is due to the photon decoupling process in the BBT is a clear fiction. The CMB is due to our current Universe. It proves that our universe is Infinite.
However, you don't want to accept my explanation that is based on clear physics law. Instead you hang on that none relevant idea of photon decoupling process.
Ok

[duffyd]

However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.

That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".

Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. I

Lie 1

Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.

Lie 2

Are you the truth police? You accuse quite a few people of lying. Troll

[duffyd]

If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered

How can I say sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong?
Simple.
Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong.
But the important thing to do is think.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.

In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.

Is it clear?

Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.
In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.

You say "
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
but you don't understand what it means.

You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?

[Bored chemist]

If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered

How can I say sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong?
Simple.
Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong.
But the important thing to do is think.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.

In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.

Is it clear?

Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.
In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.

You say "
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
but you don't understand what it means.

You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?

Again, I can't tell if that's just incompetent editing or an attempt at dishonesty.

[Colin2B]

You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?

It is certainly his business to point out when people are wrong about science. He and @alancalverd are very experienced in science and well able to identify false thinking.
If you have specific evidence to reject what he is saying, it would be best to raise it here.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

CMB Red Shift

In the following article it is stated that the red shift is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
The cosmic microwave background has a redshift of z = 1089, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang and a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years."

So, when we look at the CMB we do understand that they cross a distance of more than 46 BLY.
Please be aware that the real meaning of comoving distance is the real distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances
"Comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe, giving a distance that does not change in time due to the expansion of space (though this may change due to other, local factors, such as the motion of a galaxy within a cluster)"
So, Our scientists do not discuss on a proper distance due to the expanation:
"Proper distance roughly corresponds to where a distant object would be at a specific moment of cosmological time, which can change over time due to the expansion of the universe. "

They clearly claim that the Red Shift shows that the real distance (comoving distance) that the CMB radiation had crossed is more than 46 BLY.
In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year. That should be clear for all of us.
There is no way to fit that time in only 13.4 or even 13.8 BY from the BBT
However, if we think about infinite universe, there is high common sense in that number.
Now we know that most of the CMB radiation is coming to us from the Sphere of about 46 BLY.
As the radiation amplitude is reduced by square root, than the radiation from very far away galaxies (For examples: located at 500 BLY away or 50,000 BLY) is quite neglected upon the arrival to our location.
So, now we know that although we are living in infinite Universe, the real sphere around us that contributes the maximal radiation energy in the CMB is about 46 BLY.
I have full confidence that if we could set the simulation for our infinite Universe with its current density, we should get exactly that CMB temperature including its black body radiation. However, I still expect to see some wider spectrum in the red shift.

This key verification gives further justification for theory D and actually knocks out the BBT.

[Bored chemist]

I have full confidence that if we could set the simulation for our infinite Universe with its current density, we should get exactly that CMB temperature including its black body radiation.

You may be confident, but you are still wrong.
The maths is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox#The_paradox

[Kryptid]

In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year. That should be clear for all of us.

And now you've demonstrated that you don't know how the metric expansion of space works.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.

That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".

Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. I

Lie 1

Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.

Lie 2

Shame on you
I do believe that anyone in this forum that takes the effort to open new tread and presents his ideas in science represents his own Truth.
No one lies. We can agree or disagree with any point of view.
If someone considers that the other one is liar, than he is the real liar.
In any case, before we criticize anyone, it is our obligation to understand his ideas
You didn't even try to read this tread as you were focusing only on the negative aspects..
You actually didn't even backup your negative replies with any article (except of one)..
In this one, you have contradicted your own negative feedback and we have already discussed about it.
With regards to the "dark night sky paradox" by Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers
"the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe."
That paradox doesn't contradict Theory D. I have already explained it to you.
 

The assumption that an infinite Universe could keep the light during the night is a poor fiction.
We actually get a direct light only from galaxies that are drifting away from us at a velocity which is less than a speed of light.
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
If we will draw a direct line to any direction up to the infinity, we technically should find only in this line an infinite no of galaxies. However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Therefore, we can't see them. Only 0.0..1 are located at the observable aria in our Universe.
So, the total galaxies in that line which are still located in the "observable aria" are quite neglected and therefore it goes dark at night.
Is it clear?

However, You could also easily understand it if you took the time to read the following explanation about the expansion:

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.

Unfortunately, as expected, you didn't take the effort to read my explanations.
You only focus in highlighting your "negative wisdom".
I have never got from you any positive reply as your main task is focusing on the Negative.
Your approach aim to knock down any person that wishes to get better understanding in science.
By doing so, you might set your ego in the sky and feel how "clever" you are.
Shame on you!
You have to apologize to any person in this forum that you have insulted.

[Kryptid]

I do believe that anyone in this forum that takes the effort to open new tread and presents his ideas in science represents his own Truth.

Either something is true or it isn't. The Big Bang theory, for example, can't be true for one person and false for another.

Unfortunately, as expected, you didn't take the effort to read my explanations.

He reads them, he just knows enough about science to say that they are wrong.

I have never got from you any positive reply as your main task is focusing on the Negative.

That is, at least in part, because your "theory" is filled with errors.

Your approach aim to knock down any person that wishes to get better understanding in science.

People who are looking to get a better understanding of science ask questions. And I don't mean the rhetorical questions of the kind you pose. You make declarations instead. Declarations based on poor logic. Bored Chemist is pointing that out.

How many actual scientists have you spoken to that agree with "Theory D" anyway?

[Bored chemist]

We can agree or disagree with any point of view.

Or we can do what you do and repeatedly make statements that have been shown to be false.
That's called lying.

[Bored chemist]

If someone considers that the other one is liar, than he is the real liar.

Can you show me the dictionary that uses that definition?

[Bored chemist]

"the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe."

So, it conflicts with a universe like the one you describe here

... a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.