[Dave Lev (OP)]

Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.

Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.

There is no source point.  The inverse square law does not apply.

Yes there is. You claim that the Universe was dense and hot. So if you take the calculation from the moment of the Recombination, than you have to verify  the volume (or distance) from that time.
The energy of the radiation must be directly connected to the Volume of the Universe and not just to its redshift value.
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
If the energy at the first sigment was 3,000K, than by increasing the Volume by 88M the density and temperature should fall to:
3,000 /88M = 0.000034 K
However, we clearly monitor 2.7K.
This by itself should kick down the BBT.
The red shift gives an indication for a distance.
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
Try to use it and see that even in this case the temp should fall down almost to zero.
The 2.7K is feasible ONLY for infinite Universe.
The Value of 1089 in the redshift indicates that the contribution of the energy in the CMB is coming mainly from a sphere of about 45 BLY.
We can't get significant energy from galaxies that are located too far away from that sphere. However, the impact of the infinite galaxies up to the infinity set the BBR.
If we could run a simulation for Infinite Universe based on the current density we should get exactly the same CMB that we see today

[Bored chemist]

Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.

Prove it.

Yes there is.

What is it then?

[Bobolink]

Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.

That of course is not based on evidence, it is based on your profound ignorance of astrophysics.

Yes there is. You claim that the Universe was dense and hot.

Just to be clear these, are not my claims.  These are the findings of physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.  I have looked at the evidence and it seems very compelling.

So if you take the calculation from the moment of the Recombination, than you have to verify  the volume (or distance) from that time.

Nope.  The universe did not expand away from some point in space, every point in space expanded, there was no central point, so there was no mythical point source.
My bet is this concept is way over your head.
 

I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000

It is not surprising that you would make such an egregious error considering your your rudimentary understanding of cosmology.

This by itself should kick down the BBT.

Wrong.

The red shift gives an indication for a distance.

Holy crap!! You said something correct!!!!

If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.

Now we are back to ignorance on display.  No you are wrong again.

Try to use it and see that even in this case the temp should fall down almost to zero.
The 2.7K is feasible ONLY for infinite Universe.
The Value of 1089 in the redshift indicates that the contribution of the energy in the CMB is coming mainly from a sphere of about 45 BLY.
We can't get significant energy from galaxies that are located too far away from that sphere. However, the impact of the infinite galaxies up to the infinity set the BBR.
If we could run a simulation for Infinite Universe based on the current density we should get exactly the same CMB that we see today

This is just a series of ignorant statements.

It is so embarrassing, it is like you are jumping up and down waving your arms and saying look how ignorant I am!!!

Let me assure you we can all see that just fine.....

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The universe did not expand away from some point in space, every point in space expanded, there was no central point, so there was no mythical point source.
My bet is this concept is way over your head.

Well, you have to take a decision
You can't just hold the stick in both sides..
You claim specifically that "every point in space expanded"
However, our scientists claim that there was no space before the bang, so how could you expand every point in space while the space is missing?
If you claim that there was space before the bang than this is a severe violation of the BBT starting point.
In any case, let's assume that there was space.
If there was a space and no central point, than any point in that space should be considered as a central point.
So, there are two options:
1. The space is infinite - In this case in order to fulfill the "no central point" the Space/universe must be infinite.
2. The space is finite and compact - In this case, there must be a central point - the compact/finite space itself in the infinite universe.
Actually there is a clear contradiction between finite universe to "no central point"
If you claim that our current Universe is finite, than if we go back in time we have to minimize its space. Therefore, at some point you have to get to a central point somewhere in the Universe.
If you still think that a finite Universe could have "no central point", than would you kindly explain it.

Just to be clear these, are not my claims.  These are the findings of physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.  I have looked at the evidence and it seems very compelling.

Sorry, we discuss science.
If you claim that the Universe today is finite, while you also claim that its space had been expanded dramatically in the last 13.8 BY, than somehow you have to start with a compact space/Universe.
You claim that:

Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.

So, at the recombination time the universe was much compact than our time.
That compact universe/space has a volume. In that limited volume the whole mass/energy of the universe was concentrated at very high density. This density sets the temperature of the radiation/energy to 3000K.
You don't have to be physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists to understand that if you increase the volume you directly decrease the density. If you decrease the density you also decrease the temp radiation/energy proportionally.
I have found that every 1200 years the volume of the Universe is increasing by 8.
The outcome is direct decreasing in the density by 8 and therefore the temp must be dropped also by 8.
Our physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists can't just change the law of science according their wishful thinking.
Would you kindly show me on which law in physics they have based their calculation in order to extract the temp from the redshift?
Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?
Sorry - the temp must be a direct outcome of density or distance.
Any other calculation is a pure fiction even if it is made by very smart physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:39:50
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000

It is not surprising that you would make such an egregious error considering your rudimentary understanding of cosmology.

If you think that I have an error, than would you kindly set the calculation by yourself or find an article with the relevant calculation.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:39:50
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.

Now we are back to ignorance on display.  No you are wrong again.

You can't just claim that the physics books/law are based on ignorance.
If you wish I can offer you those physics books /law of how to calculate the radiation/energy due to distance/volume.
You can't just claim that I'm wrong without backup yourself with a clear physics law.
Even those 100,000 physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists must base their calculations on physics law.
So please, show me the physics law of their unrealistic calculation.

[Bored chemist]

If you think that I have an error, than would you kindly set the calculation by yourself or find an article with the relevant calculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Relationship_to_the_Big_Bang
Did you not think you should read, at least the wiki page, about the BB and CMB before trying to tell everyone that it's wrong?

[Bobolink]

Well, you have to take a decision

I guess you did not notice that I believe that the BBT is the best theory to explain what we observe in the universe.

You can't just hold the stick in both sides..

What are you talking about?

You claim specifically that "every point in space expanded"
However, our scientists claim that there was no space before the bang, so how could you expand every point in space while the space is missing?

I don't know who 'your' scientist are, but the ones I know of do not know anything about what was before the big bang.  Many would say asking what was before the big bang is a silly question.

In any case, let's assume that there was space.
If there was a space and no central point, than any point in that space should be considered as a central point.
So, there are two options:
1. The space is infinite - In this case in order to fulfill the "no central point" the Space/universe must be infinite.
2. The space is finite and compact - In this case, there must be a central point - the compact/finite space itself in the infinite universe.

Seriously?  Are you that clueless??  There is a 3rd possibility, you know the BBT.  That is the one I think is right, good old number 3.  See the BBT (that thing you know all about and disagree with) clearly says that every point in space is expanding and there is no center to the universe.

Actually there is a clear contradiction between finite universe to "no central point"

Actually there isn't.  It really isn't that hard, the universe isn't expanding into anything and every point in space is expanding.  Look up the big bang on wiki if you would like to learn about that thing you don't like.

So, at the recombination time the universe was much compact than our time.

Very good that is correct.

That compact universe/space has a volume.

Two correct statements in a row, you are on a roll.

You don't have to be physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists to understand that if you increase the volume you directly decrease the density. If you decrease the density you also decrease the temp radiation/energy proportionally.

You are knocking it out of the park this is all correct!

Well this is fun but I gotta go grab dinner.  This has been quite humorous, I will be back.

Edit:  misread the a part and edited my answer.

[Kryptid]

You are hopeless!

As I know all too well. He had a prior thread called "How gravity works in spiral galaxy?" where he and I discussed this exact same "theory" of his from last March to last December. I made absolutely no progress towards teaching him the error of his ways. If you plan on sticking this out, you're in it for a long haul.

[Bobolink]

You are hopeless!

As I know all too well. He had a prior thread called "How gravity works in spiral galaxy?" where he and I discussed this exact same "theory" of his from last March to last December. I made absolutely no progress towards teaching him the error of his ways. If you plan on sticking this out, you're in it for a long haul.

There is no way I'm in it for the long haul, I find his combination of ignorance and arrogance very frustrating.  But I will play along for a while longer.

[Bobolink]

I have found that every 1200 years the volume of the Universe is increasing by 8.

As I have said that is based on the simple minded belief that the expansion rate is constant - it isn't.  That was some really swell arithmetic but the math will be a bit more complicated to give a meaningful answer.

Our physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists can't just change the law of science according their wishful thinking.

Always keep in mind that your inability to understand a concept does not mean the concept is wrong it only means you cannot understand it.

Would you kindly show me on which law in physics they have based their calculation in order to extract the temp from the redshift?

That makes no sense, a redshift can't have a temperature.  I think you mean CMB not redshift.  The temperature is found by the wavelength of the radiation.  The wavelength corresponds to the black body radiation from a 2.73 K body.  Easy!

Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?

What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift?  What in the hell would that tell you?

Sorry - the temp must be a direct outcome of density or distance.
Any other calculation is a pure fiction even if it is made by very smart physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.

What temperature?  The CMB black body temperature?  No, distance or density isn't what made the BBR of the universe go from 3000 K to 2.73 K.  I will let you in on a secret it was expansion.  Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K.

You can't just claim that the physics books/law are based on ignorance.

No the books are fine it is your ignorance of what they say is the problem.

If you wish I can offer you those physics books /law of how to calculate the radiation/energy due to distance/volume.

No need to, I have done the calculations.  You cannot even understand what they are talking about let alone do the calculations!

You can't just claim that I'm wrong without backup yourself with a clear physics law.

OK, why would I call you ignorant when you said this:
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
The reason that statement is ignorant is because the inverse square law has nothing to do with red shift!  The inverse square law tells you how the intensity of light from a point source will decrease with distance, it tells you nothing about the red shift.

Even those 100,000 physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists must base their calculations on physics law.
So please, show me the physics law of their unrealistic calculation.

I told you earlier that the wavelength of the CMB was measured and it corresponded to 2.73 K.  Did you also know as early as 1948, that based on the BBT, there should be a microwave radiation found from when the universe became transparent.  In 1965 these microwaves (CMB) were discovered just as the BBT had predicted.  Pretty cool, huh?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:38:32
Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?

What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift?  What in the hell would that tell you?

Good Morning!!!
Didn't you have a chance to read the explanation at wiki?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
 When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.26 eV,[50] which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen.[51]

Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1100[52] due to the expansion of the universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, causing them to decrease in energy. The temperature of this radiation stays inversely proportional to a parameter that describes the relative expansion of the universe over time, known as the scale length. The temperature Tr of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.2348 meV):[53]"

So
T (during recombination time) /Redshift =
3000K/1089 = 2.7548K

I fully agree with you:

What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift?

The person/scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists that did it must be crazy.
This isn't science.
It is a science fiction.
The BBT is based on imaginary Physics law that had been specifically developed for that theory.
Therefore, if you use imaginary physics law, then you can fly without wings and also believe in the imagination that is called BBT.
In that imagination everything is possible
You can have Universe without space or space without universe.
You can have a dense and high temp without Universe or space
You can hold the time if you wish.
You can get for free infinite energy at a brief of a moment
You can set a bang with "no central point" without any need for space or universe.
You can convert that imagination energy into real particles atoms and even stars and galaxies without any need for electromagnetic.
You can get dark matter wherever is needed and at any requested complex density to hold your spiral galaxy in place.
You can also get unlimited dark energy to boost the far away galaxies.
No need for any physics books /law. They will make the calculation for you - "No need to, I have done the calculations."
You can also get free of charge an expansion in space - "Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K"
Unfortunately, you didn't ask for expansion in time, therefore we can't deliver this feature for you at this moment.
However, if you dare to criticize that wonderful BBT imagination than - "it is your ignorance of what they say is the problem"
So all you need is to believe in the BBT
So simple request.

Sorry to destroy your wonderful dream/imagination.
However, it's a time to walk up. You can't sleep for more than 70 years. It's already noon time. Please walk up.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Sometimes I wonder why do I need that kind of "fight"
No one really appreciate my message. No one pays my celery for the time that I invest in this issue.
On the contrary, you all highlight my Poor knowledge and ignorant.
So why do I need to walk you up from your wonderful dream.
Look at those people who dare to raise their voices against the mainstream
Darwin had been totally neglected from its society.
Galileo had been set in prison for claiming that we are not the center of the Universe.
Just think about it - how could he dare for that claim? Shame on him!!!
So, why they have both decided to go against the main stream at their time and totally be ejected from their society.

I wonder if I need to continue or just let you continue with your wonderful dream.
However, if one day you would walk up and look for the ultimate theory for our universe, than please read again this thread.

[Kryptid]

Look at those people who dare to raise their voices against the mainstream
Darwin had been totally neglected from its society.
Galileo had been set in prison for claiming that we are not the center of the Universe.
Just think about it - how could he dare for that claim? Shame on him!!!
So, why they have both decided to go against the main stream at their time and totally be ejected from their society.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

[Bored chemist]

You can have Universe without space or space without universe.
You can have a dense and high temp without Universe or space
You can hold the time if you wish.
You can get for free infinite energy at a brief of a moment
You can set a bang with "no central point" without any need for space or universe.
You can convert that imagination energy into real particles atoms and even stars and galaxies without any need for electromagnetic.
You can get dark matter wherever is needed and at any requested complex density to hold your spiral galaxy in place.
You can also get unlimited dark energy to boost the far away galaxies.
No need for any physics books /law. They will make the calculation for you - "No need to, I have done the calculations."
You can also get free of charge an expansion in space - "Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K"

Nobody said you could.
Either that's a poorly constructed strawman attack or it's time you actually read the science.

[Bored chemist]

No one really appreciate my message.

Try sending a message which is not obviously wrong.

[Bobolink]

T (during recombination time) /Redshift =
3000K/1089 = 2.7548K

Where did you get this from:  redshift = 1089?

Edit to add:  I see it is 'z'.

Z= (wavelength[now]-wavelength[org])/wavelength[org]

I was wrong on this point.

[Halc]

I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.

Another random number pulled out of your arse it seems.  Off by 7 orders of magnitude if based on actual empirical measurements.

If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000

The math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 8^11,000,000, not 8 * 11M.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 15:39:50
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.

Another random number pulled out of your arse it seems.  Off by 7 orders of magnitude if based on actual empirical measurements.

Thanks Halc
It should be 12,000 Y instead of 1200 Y
Please see the following calculation:

Let's look again in the following explanation about the expansion:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."

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:

Quote
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000

The math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 8^11,000,000, not 8 * 11M.

Thanks again
You are absolutely correct with regards to Volume of a cube.

Let's verify a Cube:
First expansion - 3x3x3 is expanding to 6x6x6 which means 6^3 /3^3 = 2^3 = 8^1 times 3x3x3 Ly
Second expansion is: 6x6x6 is expanding to 12x12x12 which means 12^3 /3^3 = 4^3 = 64 = 8^2 times 3x3x3 Ly
Third expansion is : 12x12x12 is expanding to 24x24x24 which means 24^3 / 3^3  =8^3 times 3x3x3 Ly
Expansion No. 4 is: 48x48x48 which means 48^3 / 3^3 = 16^3 = 8^4 times 3x3x3 Ly
So, the formula is: 8^n
As n = 11,000,000
Therefore if we start from a cube of 3x3x3 Ly the minimal size of the Volume after 11,00,000 should be
8^11,000,000 multiply by 3x3x3 LY

However, if we discuss on a direct line (or radius) than:
3 Ly Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3Ly
6 Ly increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3Ly
12 Ly increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3Ly

So the formula for the radius is
3LY * 2^n
If n = 11,000,000, The radius is 3 * 2^11,000,000 Ly =
If you try to run that number you get Infinity.
Let's verify what is the value n in order to set a Universe with a radius of 15 BLY
3 * 2^n LY = 15BLY = 15 * 10^9 Y
2^n = 5 10^9

If n = 32
2^32 = 4.2949673×10^9

Therefore, after only 32 times we already get a radius of almost 13BLY, while after 33 times the radius of the Universe is already: 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.

Hence, based on the expansion rate of the BBT, after only 12,000 x 33 = 396,000 years, a radius of 3Ly should be expanded to 25.74 BLy.

That proves that something must be wrong.
If my calculation is correct, than there must be an error in the BBT.

[Bobolink]

That proves that something must be wrong.

Clearly.

If my calculation is correct, than there must be an error in the BBT.

Then obviously your calculation is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Then obviously your calculation is wrong.

Are you sure about it?
Did you ever tried to understand the real meaning of the expansion rate?
So, please, would you kindly show where is the error in my calculation?
Let's start with the following explanation:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."
So, I hope that we all agree that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years?
If so,
1 Year = 31556926 Seconds?
Therefore, 75Km/sec = 31556926* 75 =  2,366,769,450 Km/y = 2.366 * 10 ^9 km/year

One light year by wiki: "The light-year is a unit of length used to express astronomical distances and measures about 9.46 trillion kilometers (9.46 x 10^12 km)"
So do you agree that 3Ly = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^12 Km?

How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3LY?
28.38 * 10^12 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11,991 years
Let's assume that 11,991 years is almost 12,000 Years.

As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than do you agree that every 12,000 years each segment of 3LY is actually double its size?

Therefore, the formula for the radius should be as follow"
After the first 12,000 years interval time, the first 3 Ly Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3Ly
After the second 12,000 years interval time,  a distance of 6 Ly increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3Ly
After the third 12,000 years interval time, a distance of 12 Ly increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3Ly
..
After the n times 12,000 years interval time, a distance of 3*2^(n-1) increases to 3*2^n Ly

Therefore, do you agree that if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe was only 3LY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n Ly
The formula for the time is: T (n) =  n x 12,000 Years.

After n =33
Radius (n=33) = 3 * 2^n Ly = 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.
T (time after n=33) = 12,000 * 33 = 396,000 Years

Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?

[Kryptid]

Out of curiosity, Dave, if you had ten actual physicists (you know, people whose job it is to know this kind of stuff) tell you that your understanding of concepts like conservation of energy, universal expansion and the theory of relativity was all flawed, would you actually believe them or would you think that those ten physicists are deluded while you were the correct one? Would it even so much as give you pause and make you reconsider your understanding? If it was one hundred different physicists from around the world saying it, would it make any difference to you?