[Bored chemist]

Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expanding

Yes we do. Because the more distant galaxies are receding faster.

You need to recognise that, just because you don't know something doesn't mean it is unknown.


If your rocket was far enough away, it wouldn't need to use its engines to move away from us faster than light.

(75+75 = 150)

VELOCITIES DO NOT ADD LIKE THAT.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I TELL YOU THAT PRETENDING THEY DO DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE?

[Bobolink]

Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expanding
You have already confirmed that our scientists do not measure the space itself.
I hope that you agree that the expansion is measured ONLY by the observable galaxies.
However, our scientists assume that the only explanation for that is space expansion.
I claim that there is no way to set expansion in space as there is no way to set expansion in time. Space is fixed and time is fixed.

This is counter to the BBT, General Relativity and others.  You need evidence that refutes these ideas, your incredulity is not enough.

Therefore, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
In one day the expansion rate is 75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
1 Year = 365 days
In 1,000 years = 365 10^3 days. So, in one 1,000 years the expansion is: 6,480,000 * 365 *10^3 = 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km
We know that 1 Light Year = 9.4605E+12 Kilometers
We also know that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
Therefore, 3 Million LY means
9.4605 10^12 * 3 = 28.3815 10^12 km
So, in order for the expansion to multiply the size 3LY, we need:
1,000 year * 28.3815 10^12 km / 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km= 12,000 Years
Hence, 12,000 years are needed for the expansion to multiply the distance of two nearby galaxies from 3Light years to 6 Light years.
So, in 12,000 years a Volume of the 3x3x3 = 27 Ly cube had been increased to 6x6x6 = 216 ly
Therefore, in every 12,000 years the volume of our space is increasing by 6^3/ 3^3 = 3^2 = 8
So, let's see the meaning of this expansion:

I'll assume your arithmetic is correct, but your concept is wrong.  Each km increase in distance between the galaxies increases the recession velocity.  In other words galaxies separated by 1 megaparsec have a recession velocity of 75 km/sec and galaxies separated by 2 megaparsecs have a recession velocity of 150 km/sec.  You need to take that into account.

Action 1

Oh boy, this is going to be difficult... I wish you would just ask questions..

Space expansion:
Let's start the timer of the expansion is space of 75 kilometers/ sec while the whole universe size is 3x3x3 Ly:

I assume you mean 75 kilometer/sec/megaparsec.  I also assume you mean 3x3x3 mega ly.

Due to this expansion in space, each galaxy is moving now at those 75 kilometers/sec in its direction.

That makes no sense because the constant is 75 kilometers/sec/megaparsec.  So for one of the galaxies at a corner of the cube, 3 of the galaxies would have the recession velocity of 75 km/sec,  3 of the other galaxies would have recession velocity of 106 km/sec and the last galaxy would have a recession velocity of 130 km/sec.

Just look at 2 galaxies to reduce the complexity!
Assume that there 2 galaxies that are 1 megaparsec apart.  That would mean that the recession velocity as seen by either galaxy would be 75 km/sec.  At some later time the galaxies will be 2 megaparsecs apart, when that is true the recession velocity will be 150 km/sec.

Rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:
In this case, let's assume that we only fire just one rocket/galaxy at a time from each galaxy and in the direction of the expansion.

There is no directions of expansion!  If you blow up a balloon, what direction is it expanding??

Therefore, after 12,000 years we should get the new rockets/ galaxies exactly at the edge of the 6x6x6 cube while each one of them is moving at a velocity of 75Km/sec
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside - each one of them is moving at 75 kilometers in its direction.
So far Rocket over rocket is identical to space expansion.

No your analysis is wrong because you forgot to factor in the expansion of space!  The rocket moves away from the galaxy at 75 km/sec.  So after 12,000 years the rocket will still be moving through space at 75 km/sec away from the galaxy.  However, there is also an increase in distance between the galaxy just from the expansion of space.  That also means that there will be a recession velocity between the rocket and the galaxy.   In other words the rocket will be much farther from the galaxy than you calculated.

I think your big misconception is that you still think of galaxies as moving through space instead of space expanding .

Instead of you trying to calculate things without fully understanding the concepts, wouldn't be much easier for you to ask questions about why the rocket and expansion are treated differntly?

I am not going to look at the rest of the post until we can get the basics sorted out.

Edit for clarity.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

This is counter to the BBT, General Relativity and others.  You need evidence that refutes these ideas, your incredulity is not enough.

Ok
The evidence is as follow:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"These pulsating stars are vital rungs in what astronomers call the cosmic distance ladder: a set of objects with known distances that, when combined with the speeds at which the objects are moving away from us, reveal the expansion rate of the universe," said Glenn Wahlgren, Spitzer program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
So, it is clear that our scientists are measuring far end objects as pulsating stars.
Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.
So, our scientists have never ever set any sort of measurements with regards to the space.
They have only measured objects with reference to other objects in the space.
Therefore, the idea that there is an expansion in space could be as good as there is expansion in time.
I can't prove it or disprove it.
Our scientists are free to assume whatever they wish.
However, they can't just claim that they have measured the expansion in space as this is misleading information.
They have to highlight that they have only measured objects in space.
Those pulsating stars give indications only about the matter in the space and not about the space itself.
Therefore, the assumption that those pulsating stars are moving due to space expansion is just an assumption.

I assume you mean 75 kilometer/sec/megaparsec.  I also assume you mean 3x3x3 mega ly.

Yes, that is correct

That makes no sense because the constant is 75 kilometers/sec/megaparsec.  So for one of the galaxies at a corner of the cube, 3 of the galaxies would have the recession velocity would be 75 km/sec,  3 of the other galaxies would have recession velocity of 106 km/sec and the last galaxy would have a recession velocity of 130 km/sec.

Well, I have used the center of that 3x3x3x MLY as the reference point for the directions and velocities.

Just look at 2 galaxies to reduce the complexity!
Assume that there 2 galaxies that are 1 megaparsec apart.  That would mean that they recession velocity as seen by either galaxy would be 75 km/sec.  At some later time the galaxies will be 2 megaparsecs apart, when that is true the recession velocity will be 150 km/sec.

Yes, perfect idea

There is no directions of expansion!  If you blow up a balloon, what direction is it expanding??

Based on theory D, new born BH are ejected in all directions. Did you know that our scientists have discovered more than 10,000 BH in the center of our galaxy? So those baby BH should be ejected outwards from the galaxy. It might take them some time to do so. by that time they might increase their mass and might host a dwarf galaxy.
Do you know that out of the 195 galaxies in our aria, about 100 are considered as satellites of the Milky Way and Andromeda.
So, first they are born near the SMBH. Then they are drifted all the way to the far end of the galaxy. at that time they are quite massive and considered as a satellites
The last phase is the final ejection. Out of the 190 galaxies, 90 galaxies have already ejected from their mater galaxy. Each one of them might move to a different location. There is good chance that they are drifting away at the expansion velocity of 75Km/s.
In any case, as there are so many babies, sooner or later at least one of them should move in the same direction as its matter galaxy.
Therefore, I have focused only on the one that is moving in that direction.
So, the baby/dwarf galaxies that are ejected from its mother' galaxy acts as a rocket that is fired from the galaxy.
Therefore, to make it short, let's just assume that every time one baby galaxy/rocket had been ejected/fired in the direction that we wish.

The rocket moves away from the galaxy at 75 km/sec.  So after 12,000 years the rocket will still be moving through space at 75 km/hour away from the galaxy.  However, there is also an increase in distance between the galaxy just from the expansion of space.  That also means that there will be a recession velocity between the rocket and the galaxy.

Yes, all of that is correct

In other words the rocket will be much farther from the galaxy than you calculated.

As you have offered, let's focus only on two galaxies at 2D. So, if they are located at a distance of 3MLY from each other, then based on the expansion theory they should move away from each other at 75Km/s.

I think your big misconception is that you still think of galaxies as moving through space instead of space expanding .

Yes, I think that galaxies are moving through space because that exactly the way that our scientists are measuring the expansion.
If you can prove that our scientists are measuring the space (or space frame) than I'm ready to accept the idea that the space is expanding.

Instead of you trying to calculate things without fully understanding the concepts, wouldn't be much easier for you to ask questions about why the rocket and expansion are treated differntly?

Well, I'm quite sure about theory D. please try to understand how it works and let me know if you see any problems with this theory.

I am not going to look at the rest of the post until we can get the basics sorted out.

Now we discuss about the idea that rocket over rocket syatem is  almost identical to the expansion in space process.
Take your time and let me know if you have any question.

[Bored chemist]

Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.

What "frame".

Those stars are certainly in spacetime.
Where else could they be?

[Bored chemist]

So, our scientists have never ever set any sort of measurements with regards to the space.

Yes they have.
Red shift, for a start.

Why do you keep making false claims about what science had done (or not done).

[Bored chemist]

If you can prove that our scientists are measuring the space (or space frame) than I'm ready to accept the idea that the space is expanding.

Well, traveling through space at more than C is impossible.
Travelling with expanding space at more than C is possible.
We see things travelling at more than C.

[Bobolink]

"These pulsating stars are vital rungs in what astronomers call the cosmic distance ladder: a set of objects with known distances that, when combined with the speeds at which the objects are moving away from us, reveal the expansion rate of the universe," said Glenn Wahlgren, Spitzer program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
So, it is clear that our scientists are measuring far end objects as pulsating stars.
Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.

Oh for crying out loud, the stars are called cepheid variables.
What does "not connected to the space frame" mean?

Take your time and let me know if you have any question.

Why is it that no matter where look in the universe we find that outside of our local group the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it is moving away from us?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Oh for crying out loud, the stars are called cepheid variables.
What does "not connected to the space frame" mean?

"Cepheid" By Google translate - "a variable star having a regular cycle of brightness with a frequency related to its luminosity, so allowing estimation of its distance from the earth."

So, this variable star is allowing estimation of its distance from the earth.

However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?
You have already confirmed that:

Correct velocity is relative.  There is no absolute frame of reference.

Let's assume that we only see one Cepheid moving away from us at 0.5c.
So our distance and relative velocity to that Cepheid is very clear.
However, with regards to the absolute space frame of reference:
Can we verify that one of us is fixed in this absolute frame of reference?

Now add as many cepheid variables as you wish.
If we all are crossing the absolute frame of reference at 1c or 10c, would we notice it?

So, when our scientists have measured our relative velocity is space, they didn't claim for the absolute space frame of reference.
They just found our relative velocity with regards to the observable objects as those Cepheid variables.

Therefore, as we can't measure the absolute space frame of reference, how can we claim that there is expansion that we measure the space itself?
Sorry – don't you see that this statement is a misleading information?.
It is OK that our scientists think/assume that the space expansion could solve their problem.
However, how could they claim that they have really measured the space expansion as they clearly can't measure the absolute frame of reference.

Why is it that no matter where look in the universe we find that outside of our local group the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it is moving away from us?

Are you sure about it?

Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.
So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This galaxy is located at a distance of  58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc) 
Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us.
"The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"
Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/s
Now, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.
Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.
Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?

[Bobolink]

However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?

I am afraid that is a stupid question.  Of course you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of Relativity so it is not surprising you asked.
Well at least you now have vague notion what a cepheid variable star is, so you accidentally learned a bit about astronomy.

Let's assume that we only see one Cepheid moving away from us at 0.5c.
So our distance and relative velocity to that Cepheid is very clear.
However, with regards to the absolute space frame of reference:
Can we verify that one of us is fixed in this absolute frame of reference?

You really need to learn some basic physics.  We can't have meaningful discussion if you are ignorant of the subject.

Therefore, as we can't measure the absolute space frame of reference, how can we claim that there is expansion that we measure the space itself?

Your inability to understand these observations doesn't make them wrong, it must means you can't understand them.

Are you sure about it?

Yes.  It is obvious, are you really ignorant of that too?

Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.
So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This galaxy is located at a distance of  58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc)
Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us.
"The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"
Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/s
Now, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.
Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.
Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?

The explanation like most of physics appears to be over your head since your education is clearly confined to cruising the internet.  The site where you found M90 would have explained it, but alas you did not understand.  I am afraid I couldn't explain it to you with out using big words and slightly difficult concepts.

I suppose you should just continue to use your caricature of a theory to bolster your fantasy that you are a great astrophysicist.

Isn't pretending is fun!  Not very rewarding, but I guess if it is all you have...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I am afraid that is a stupid question.  Of course you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of Relativity so it is not surprising you asked.

Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge, you didn't answer any question and totally ignored all the key issues.
This is a perfect strategy to anyone that has no answers.
However, it is quite frustrated as I had higher expectations from you.
In any case, I do appreciate your support so far and please feel free to ignore this thread.
You don't have to force yourself reading my explanation, especially if you don't like the subject.

However, just for the record l would like to offer one more example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921
NGC 4921 is a barred spiral galaxy in the Coma Cluster, located in the constellation Coma Berenices. It is about 320 million light-years from Earth.
So, based on the expansion rate, it should move away at:
75 * 320/3 = 8,000 Km/sec
Surprizingly, it only moves at 5,482 km/s[2]
So, if the expansion rate is correct, than this galaxy is moving against the space expansion in our direction at almost 2,500 Km/sec.
The expansion theory is working only in expanding the volume of the space/Universe. Therefore, it can only increase the distance between galaxies.
If that theory was correct, it was not expected to see any galaxy that contradicts the expansion rate so dramatically.
I know that our scientists try to explain this unexpected observation by "Gravity"
That was the answer for the discovery of Andromeda in the direction of the milky way.
However, they ignore the real meaning of gravity. It isn't momentum.
Gravity can't just pull galaxies in a specific direction and keep them in a direct momentum.
This is a fantasy
If someone who has better appreciation to my knowledge will ask it, I will answer with pleasure.

In any case, with regards to the space expansion
Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLY
So, if that is correct, than the volume of the universe is increasing by 8 every 1200 years.
Therefore, the density of our universe should be reduce by 8 every 1200 Years.
This must have severe impact on every aspect including the CMB.
This is something that we had to verify by observation in just few years.
However, if I understand it correctly, our scientists don't see any reduction in the density of the Universe or any change in the CMB.
I also assume that they will never ever see any change in the density or the CMB even after trillion years from now.
Theory D is the only theory that gives perfect explanation for any observation in our Universe.
You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.

[Bored chemist]

However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?
You have already confirmed that:
Quote from: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 16:09:11
Correct velocity is relative.  There is no absolute frame of reference.

Did you read that through before you posted it?

Did you stop and think something like this?

I'm saying that this guy has confirmed that there is no absolute frame of reference.
and now I'm asking
" how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?"

I'm asking how how it is related to something which I know does not exist".

It's like asking if it's faster than a unicorn.


Why do you post stuff like that?
Do you enjoy getting laughed at?

[Bored chemist]

Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge,

We are not talking about deep knowledge here.
We are talking about common sense.
If something does not exist, you can't measure your speed relative to it.

[Bobolink]

Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge, you didn't answer any question and totally ignored all the key issues.
This is a perfect strategy to anyone that has no answers.
However, it is quite frustrated as I had higher expectations from you.

Yeah, sorry to let you down.  The problem is that while your 'theory' is astonishingly bad, I thought it would be fun to discuss it with you but the way you stubbornly cling to your ignorance was to annoying.

Looking through your goofy ideas just leads to me thinking after each sentence, no, nope, wrong, wrong, absurd...

I mean not only is the science wrong the history is wrong! 

Here is a couple examples:

To my best knowledge, Einstein had totally rejected the BBT.

Not surprisingly, the best of your knowledge, falls well short of the mark.

He has also rejected his first idea for cosmological constant. He called it: the greatest blunder.

The field equations of General Relativity resulted in a universe that was either expanding or contracting, he thought that must be wrong, so he put in a constant to make the universe static.  When he saw the evidence that the universe was expanding he took out his 'blunder' from the field equations.
I don't know why you brought up Einstein anyway, you have already shown that you don't think relativity is correct.  Of course you are so lost that you may not even know that you violate relativity. 

So basically I once again am forced to reveal your ignorance

You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.

I guess you're right, nothing will compel you to learn any science.  Too bad, but it doesn't hurt me any. [shrug]

[Bored chemist]

You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.

Yes, it will help.
It will help other people who come here. They might not have the background to realise that you are passing of gibberish as science.
But having someone here point out that you are just bewilderingly badly wrong, will let them know.
It would also help you; if you stopped being so pig headed and went off and learned stuff.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes, it will help.
It will help other people who come here. They might not have the background to realise that you are passing of gibberish as science.

If you both claim that you know science better than me, than why don't you answer the following questions with regards to the Expansion rate impact, CMB and BBT?
1.

Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.
So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This galaxy is located at a distance of  58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc)
Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us.
"The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"
Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/s
Now, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.
Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.
Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?

2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921
NGC 4921 is a barred spiral galaxy in the Coma Cluster, located in the constellation Coma Berenices. It is about 320 million light-years from Earth.
So, based on the expansion rate, it should move away at:
75 * 320/3 = 8,000 Km/sec
Surprizingly, it only moves at 5,482 km/s[2]
So, if the expansion rate is correct, than this galaxy is moving against the space expansion in our direction at almost 2,500 Km/sec.
The expansion theory is working only in expanding the volume of the space/Universe. Therefore, it can only increase the distance between galaxies.
If that theory was correct, it was not expected to see any galaxy that contradicts the expansion rate so dramatically.

3.

Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLY
So, if that is correct, than the volume of the universe is increasing by 8 every 1200 years.
Therefore, the density of our universe should be reduce by 8 every 1200 Years.
This must have severe impact on every aspect including the CMB.
This is something that we had to verify by observation in just few years.

With regards to the CMB:
I'm still waiting for your answers about the CMB:

1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe
2. How could it be that a BBR is created by a Bang (even if we call it big bang)? Please offer valid explanation for that!!!
3. How "a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation" could stay in the open space for more than 13.8BY, while I have offered an article from wiki that radiation should cross the space at the speed of light.
4. Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point? Why we do not calculate the radiation amplitude by "inverse-square law"
Please remember, it was stated at wiki:
"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
If you claim that time represents distance, than we are currently moving away from the singularity point of the Big bang at almost the speed of light. However, as the radiation is also moving at the speed of light, than how could it be that we get any radiation from that Big Bang that took place 13.8 BY ago?
5. If the universe is finite, than how could it be that we see the same CMB temp in all directions?
6. How the CMB could carry a BBR while there are no walls around our finite Universe.
Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere. Without a cover for our finite Universe, there is no way to keep a BBR in our universe for so long time.

Hence, without real answers for all of those questions, it is clear that our scientists have totally failed in the burden of proof as they can't provide sufficient warrant for their position...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Some more point about the CMB and BBT:

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

BBT violation

Based on the BBT, the process starts from "initial state of very high density and high temperature". So, this "initial state of very high density and high temperature" includes all the energy that is needed to create new mass in the entire Universe including dark energy and dark matter, inflation, expansion
So, somehow, at an instant moment the whole energy of the entire Universe had been given to set our entire universe by one single Big Bang.
So, the contradictions are as follow:
1. Energy source for the BBT:
   What is the source for "high density and high temperature"?
   What does it mean high density? density of what? density of matter or density of energy?
   How that kind of high density and temperature had been created?
   If you can't show the source of energy, than there is a severe violation of thermodynamics law.
   
2. Inflation & Expansion in space -
Is it feasible to set an inflation and expansion in space by any sort of bang?
What kind of physics law can accept the idea of expansion in space due to that bang?
Did we ever try to calculate the energy that is needed to set that kind of activity?

3. Particle creation: ""After its initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms."
Can you please show the physics law that can permit the creation of particles from pure energy as a bang?
It seems that our scientists know for sure that there is no physics law that can accept the idea of creating mass from a bang.
Therefore, they don't claim for that. They only say that there was a bang and than "the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles"
However, we know that the only way to create new particles is by magnetic transformation of energy to real particles/mass in magnetic acceleration. No other process in the whole universe can set even tinny particle without that magnetic transformation. Our scientists do not claim that a magnetic accelerator had been created after the bang. Therefore, how can the estimate that just by cooling the Universe particles could be created from the high energy?

4. Particle pair creation and Annihilation
Let's assume that somehow there was a creation of partials. However, particles should be created in a pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum.["
However, without any ability to separate between the pair at the moment of creation, than those new born particle pair should be eliminated instantly at the same moment of their creation by the following process:
Annihilation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Examples
In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons.[1"
The only force that can split between the particle pair is Lorenz force that is based on magnetic field. Without any source for magnetic field in the BBT activity, no particle could be survived due to annihilation process.

5. Mean Lifetime for Particle Decay
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/meanlif.html
"The decay of particles is commonly expressed in terms of half-life, decay constant or mean lifetime. The probability for decay can be expressed as a distribution function"
So, any new created particle has a "probability for decay". the time between the creation of particle in the BBT to the time of Atom creation is very critical. If you wait too long, you have lost all the new created particles.

6. Atom creation - The Atom creation took place about  380,000 years after the Big Bang. That might be too long for any particle to survive. However, let's assume that somehow some particles had left till this moment of time.
However, how can the BBT converts those survived particles to real Atoms? Please remember that due to the inflation and space expansion, the space itself is increasing at Ultra high velocity. so, the particles almost doesn't move. It is the space itself that is increasing dramatically. That cause a severe problem. How the particles can meet each other in order to set a new Atom? Without any possibility to set a contact between particles and without any magnetic field how any new atom could be created?

6. Dark matter and dark energy - Somehow it seems that our scientists have no clue about the dark matter and dark energy although they includes more than 90 % of the total energy in the Universe. There is no info how that "dark" had been created by the BBT.

Conclusions:
Sorry, the whole process of Atoms creation including Dark energy and dark matter by the BBT is just unrealistic.
However, Theory D offers a real activity to create new atoms and fully meets any physics law including the thermodynamics...

[Bored chemist]

With regards to the CMB:
I'm still waiting for your answers about the CMB:

I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
Am I correct in that?
If so, please go and learn about spectroscopy.
Once you have the grounding I will be able to explain the answer to your question- in fact, I probably won't need to because you will work it out for yourself.
It's to do with selection rules.
The very simplistic answer is that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.

So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D. Therefore, you are using the flag of relativity in order to reject the main idea in theory D that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.
You wish to prove that this phenomenon contradicts the reality.
However, our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.

https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."

That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.
Actually, if we go back on time, when the BBT had been offered, no one really anticipate that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light. I assume that even Einstein didn't know about it when he came with his relativity theory.
This observation was a big surprise to the science community at that time.
So, I claim that it is not my task to explain the problem between the observations to the relativity formula.
I can just assume that if Einstein knew it on time, he would probably reconsider the whole issue of relativity.
In any case, I have estimated that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light and we have clear observation that fully supports this assumption.
Therefore, so far you couldn't offer any single issue that could reject Theory D, while I have offered almost unlimited problems in the BBT.
Each one of them knocks down the fiction that is called BBT.
However, as you like Einstein and you have offer his relativity, let me use his other formula:

E = mc^2

We all know that the Sun loses about 5.5 million tonnes of mass every second,
Try to calculate the energy in that mass.
Now, try to estimate how many stars there are just in our galaxy. Then add to that all the stars in the observable Universe.
Figure out the total energy that is needed for those stars to burn in just one second.
Now, try to estimate the total mass in out observable Universe.  Add to that all the dark matter and dark energy.
Try to convert this mass into energy
So, what is the source of energy for the BBT?.
Our scientists are fully aware that electromagnetic field is needed in order to set even a tinny particle
Therefore, the assumption that a bang could generate particles or Atoms without magnetic field is a pure fiction.
After all of that you wish that this bang could also start in an aria without any space.
Sorry, a Universe without space can't be considered as a universe.
In any case, somehow that early Universe without space was very dense and hot.
So, how could it be so hot while it has no space?
If it had some space than how could we claim that the time was not ticking.
If it had time than there is no possibility to get an infinite energy....
What kind of energy could create a space?
How any sort of space could expand due to a bang?
If the bang had created some space in the Universe, than this space should  create distortion in the early Universe.
Therefore, how can you claim that the Universe was homogenous and isotropic?
Without  homogenous and isotropic you can set the BBT in the garbage of history.
The first transient of the bang should kill the Homogenous and isotropic and kills with it the BBT.
If there was a bang, then this bang should create singularity. The outcome is a BH.
So, all the energy in that Big Bang should collapse at the first moment into a black hole without any possibility for escaping.
If there was any sort of expansion in space or inflation, it would probably kill the possibility to form any star.
Therefore, the BBT contradicts almost any law of science.
If you wish to believe in this imagination - you are more than welcome.

The very simplistic answer is that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe

You claim that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe as in your imagination you see a comact finite Universe.
Our Universe is Infinite. The CMBR perfectly meets our current infinite Universe.
It is actually a key indication that our Universe is infinite.
I have already deeply explained it.

[Bored chemist]

So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D.

Yes, we did.
Reality contradicts this

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

Also, you went on a rant about relativity.
I was asking about your understanding of spectroscopy.
You forgot to answer, so here's the question again.

I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
Am I correct in that?

[Bobolink]

If you both claim that you know science better than me, than why don't you answer the following questions with regards to the Expansion rate impact, CMB and BBT?
1.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:34:03
Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.
So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This galaxy is located at a distance of  58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc)
Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us.
"The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"
Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/s
Now, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.
Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.
Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?
2.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:21:14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921
NGC 4921 is a barred spiral galaxy in the Coma Cluster, located in the constellation Coma Berenices. It is about 320 million light-years from Earth.
So, based on the expansion rate, it should move away at:
75 * 320/3 = 8,000 Km/sec
Surprizingly, it only moves at 5,482 km/s[2]
So, if the expansion rate is correct, than this galaxy is moving against the space expansion in our direction at almost 2,500 Km/sec.
The expansion theory is working only in expanding the volume of the space/Universe. Therefore, it can only increase the distance between galaxies.
If that theory was correct, it was not expected to see any galaxy that contradicts the expansion rate so dramatically.

I have answered this before but I guess you didn't understand.  There is proper motion and there is recession velocity (expansion).  If there is proper motion towards us then the measured recession velocity will be lower by that amount.  Hopefully you will understand this time.

3.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:21:14
Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLY
So, if that is correct, than the volume of the universe is increasing by 8 every 1200 years.
Therefore, the density of our universe should be reduce by 8 every 1200 Years.
This must have severe impact on every aspect including the CMB.
This is something that we had to verify by observation in just few years.

Really, we could see galaxies changing position or something?  Let's see if that makes sense.
Assume a galaxy is 1 megaparsec away from us and not bound to us at all.
1 megaparsec is 3.1 x 10^19 km.
The expansion rate at that distance is 75 km/s.  After 5 years the the expansion will have moved the galaxy 1.2 x 10^10 km.
So the galaxy was originally 3.1 x 10^19 km after 5 years it will be 3.1000000012 x 10^19 km.  I don't think that would be easy to see.

1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe
2. How could it be that a BBR is created by a Bang (even if we call it big bang)? Please offer valid explanation for that!!!
3. How "a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation" could stay in the open space for more than 13.8BY, while I have offered an article from wiki that radiation should cross the space at the speed of light.
4. Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point? Why we do not calculate the radiation amplitude by "inverse-square law"
Please remember, it was stated at wiki:
"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
If you claim that time represents distance, than we are currently moving away from the singularity point of the Big bang at almost the speed of light. However, as the radiation is also moving at the speed of light, than how could it be that we get any radiation from that Big Bang that took place 13.8 BY ago?
5. If the universe is finite, than how could it be that we see the same CMB temp in all directions?
6. How the CMB could carry a BBR while there are no walls around our finite Universe.
Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere. Without a cover for our finite Universe, there is no way to keep a BBR in our universe for so long time.

Hence, without real answers for all of those questions, it is clear that our scientists have totally failed in the burden of proof as they can't provide sufficient warrant for their position...

1.  There is no mechanism in the current universe that would cause a smooth distribution of microwave radiation all at the same wavelength.
2.  Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.
3.  Where would it go?  Thanks for the article that says light moves at the speed of light...
4.  There is no source point.  The inverse square law does not apply.  I forget sometimes, how little you know about this subject.
5.  Because the expansion of space has increased the wavelength of the original radiation.
6.  What do walls have to do with anything?
I just have highlight what you wrote because it is SO wrong:
Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere.
Your ready comprehension is awful.
How do you explain the fact that you see BBR when the burner on you stove is red hot??

You are hopeless!  Did it ever occur to you that you should learn a little bit about a subject before you try to make a hypothesis about that subject.