[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's start with the following simple question:
What is the size of the Universe? Is it finite or Infinite?
In the following explanation from NASA, it is stated that the Universe is an "infinite universe expanding into itself?
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
How could it be?
I do recall that just few years ago our scientists have claimed that it is finite.
They even told us that the maximal size of our Universe might be 92 BLY (which is called - Observable Universe).
Few weeks ago I had been told that it is finite but unbounded which means a finite Universe without End.
Now it becomes Infinite Universe expanding into itself.

Dr. John Mather, Nobel Laureate and James Webb Space Telescope Senior Project Scientist had also stated:
"The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time."

However, in the following article it is stated that the Big bang started at singularity:

https://www.big-bang-theory.com/
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago."
Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity."

So, please:
What is the real size of our current Universe? Is it finite or Infinite?
If it is finite - Can you specify the real size?
If it is infinite – then how an infinite Universe could expand into itself?
How the Big Bang happened everywhere while it took place at singularity point According to the standard theory?
If it is infinite today, then how it could be at singularity 13.8 BY ago?

That issue of size is critical for the CMBR which had been set during the Era Of Recombination
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/firstLight.html
"This process of particles pairing up is called "Recombination" and it occurred approximately 240,000 to 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The Universe went from being opaque to transparent at this point. Light had formerly been stopped from traveling freely because it would frequently scatter off the free electrons. Now that the free electrons were bound to protons, light was no longer being impeded. "The era of recombination" is the earliest point in our cosmic history to which we can look back with any form of light. This is what we see as the Cosmic Microwave Background today"

If the Big Bang took place everywhere, then during the Era of recombination the Universe was already everywhere.
If it was already everywhere then how the expansion could reduce the CMBR temp while it was already everywhere as it was "infinite universe expanding into itself"

Don't you agree that if the Universe is infinite today - it must be infinite at the Big bang moment?
If it is expanding into itself - how that process could reduce the CMBR temp?

Sorry – If our scientists don't know even the basic understanding about the real size of our Universe, (finite or infinite), then how do they know for sure that the whole BBT is correct?

[Kryptid]

If you didn't understand the Big Bang theory when it was explained to you in all of your other threads, you're not going to understand it in this one either.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If you didn't understand the Big Bang theory when it was explained to you in all of your other threads, you're not going to understand it in this one either.

That is correct. I don't understand the BBT.
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
One time they claim for finite Universe with a clear limited size and shape and after few years they consider it as "infinite universe expanding into itself".
So, how could they develop any sort of a theory for a Universe without clear understanding about its real size and shape?
Don't you agree that somehow our real universe refuse to fit itself into that Big Bang Theory which had been developed 80 years ago.
Don't you agree that if any theory starts with singularity, we can't just reverse it to start from everywhere or infinity?
Hence, if our scientists consider now that the Universe is "infinite universe expanding into itself" - why they don't clear the table from the BBT and look for better Theory?
Why is it so difficult for our scientists to look at our real universe without the BBT filter?
Why they would never ever give clear information about the Universe without adding the interpretation how that verification/understanding/observation fits into the BBT?
If they understand now that the Universe is infinite, why they can't say:  "We have discovered that our Universe is Infinite"?
Why they insist to add the BBT even in this discovery (by adding the expansion):
"infinite universe expanding into itself"
Could it be that even Dr. John Mather doesn't understand the real meaning of its own message?
So, how could you expect that I would understand how our Universe fits into the BBT, while the most specialized BBT scientists don't really understand the real size & shape of our Universe

[evan_au]

Why is it so difficult for our scientists to look at our real universe?

1. Because the most distant parts of it are severely red-shifted.
- That means you need a powerful infra-red telescope to see even the brightest parts of it (quasars).
- The long-overdue James Webb telescope will open up this part of the spectrum (if and when it is ever successfully commissioned)

2. Because the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation creates a horizon that we can't peer past with electromagnetic radiation

3. Because the kinds of radiation that can penetrate the CMBR (relic neutrinos and relic gravitational waves) are so incredibly weak that we can't detect them.
- In fact, we struggle to detect events that have happened in the past 100,000 years with neutrinos
- And events in the past billion years with gravitational waves

If they understand now that the Universe is infinite

They don't.

Some theoreticians think the universe might be infinite, but they can't prove it.
- If you can see only a finite distance back in time and space (ie only events within our "light cone"), you can't easily prove that something is infinite
- If you have an opaque veil across the universe that you can't see beyond, then you struggle to know about even a finite universe

how could they develop any sort of a theory for a Universe without clear understanding about its real size and shape?

You have it backwards.

With today's technology, scientists can't know the size and shape of the universe.

So all they have are a multitude of theories - and a hope that someday, some new experimental technique or some theoretical breakthrough will let them decide between these competing theories.

Basically all the common cosmology theories today incorporate some variant of a big bang, since it is the best explanatory power for what we see today.

Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.

I am sure that there are far less than 100,000 cosmologists on the Earth.
An expert studying butterflies in the Amazon does not pretend to be an expert cosmologist (and vice-versa).

Face it, your knowledge is poor - and the knowledge of expert cosmologists is considerably less poor.
- But there are boundaries to our communal knowledge - get used to it!
- Recognizing the limits of your knowledge is the first step to expanding your boundaries.

[Bored chemist]

Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.

How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[puppypower]

The second law implies that the useable energy of the universe has to decrease with time, since entropy has to increase and an increase in entropy absorbs energy. The energy is conserved, but not in a fully reusable form, The 100,00 scientists who study the universe leave this out. I question their theories since law supersedes theory.

The implication of the second law is there is a pool of dead energy forming, that has energy value but is tied up into entropy and is thereof not fully reusable by the universe. This means the universe cannot go on forever, since the second law implies the increasing entropy will eventually cause the universe to run out of useable energy.

One big problem is since light travels faster than matter, the signals may not express the impact of the growing dead pool energy on the matter that the energy represents due to the amount of time delay between the two.

Another question one may ask is the observed red shift due to motion or the movement of energy into the dead pool, or both? Red shifted energy causes the original energy to lower energy value in a way where some of the original energy is made unusable to the universe.

For example. if I was to start with a cylinder of compressed gas at temperature T, and allowed it to expand out of the cylinder, the gas and cylinder will get colder as entropy increases. This will show up as red shift in IR spectrum, even if the cylinder remains stationary and the gas is in motion way below relativistic speeds. We can retrieve the gas and compress it to restore the heat; reverse the entropy, but that will take work and increase entropy even mor for a net gain of dead pool energy and a net loss of reusable universal energy.

How does cosmology factor in dead pool energy? If it does not, why not? Without this consideration any theory would be flawed. Dead pool energy obeys energy conservation and the second law, with these two laws higher than any theory.

[Bored chemist]

The 100,00 scientists who study the universe leave this out.

No.
They write about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

One big problem is since light travels faster than matter, the signals may not express the impact of the growing dead pool energy on the matter that the energy represents due to the amount of time delay between the two.

That doesn't make sense.

Another question one may ask is the observed red shift due to motion

Yes it is

or the movement of energy into the dead pool

No, it's not.

For example. if I was to start with a cylinder of compressed gas at temperature T, and allowed it to expand out of the cylinder, the gas and cylinder will get colder

For an ideal gas, it will not.
For a real gas it will, but that's not an entropic effect.

This will show up as red shift in IR spectrum,

Not really, no.

How does cosmology factor in dead pool energy?

In great detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)#Cosmology
Which, if you knew what you were talking about, you would already be aware of.

Did you consider at least doing a quick google search of what's known before seeking to pretend that it isn't?

If it does not, why not? Without this consideration any theory would be flawed.

Doesn't apply, does it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

With today's technology, scientists can't know the size and shape of the universe.

Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe.
If they don't know - then let them stay at the "don't know" black box.
However, I claim that they can easily understand the real size of the Universe.
The main problem is that our scientists insist to look at our Universe by the BBT filter.

1. Because the most distant parts of it are severely red-shifted.
- That means you need a powerful infra-red telescope to see even the brightest parts of it (quasars).
- The long-overdue James Webb telescope will open up this part of the spectrum (if and when it is ever successfully commissioned)

Sorry, even if we have the best powerful telescope which would detect a galaxy at a distance of 100,000 Bly away - it won't help.
The limitation is not in the instruments - it is in the mind of our scientists.
As long as our scientists insist that the maximal universe is 13.4 BLY they wouldn't be able to unleash their real understanding about our Universe.

Our scientists claim that an object with a redshift of 1.4 is located at a distance of about 9 BLY.
So, if the redshift is 1 it should represent a distance of about 6 BLY.
Therefore, it is quite obvious that if the redshift is 2 the distance should be 12 BLY.
If the redshift is 10 the distance should be 60BLY.

However, due to the BBT, those BBT scientists have decided that we can't see more than 13.4 BLY
Therefore, they have "normalized" the redshift so even if we get it at 1100 they claim for less than 13.4 LY.
This isn't science - it is science fiction.

This shows that the BBT has a full control on our observation and full control on those BBT scientists mind.

So all they have are a multitude of theories - and a hope that someday, some new experimental technique or some theoretical breakthrough will let them decide between these competing theories.

This hope isn't realistic.
They can't look at our universe by the BBT filter and hope that they have better understanding in the Future.
A redshift of 10 represents a direct distance of 60 BLY.
This is real science.
However, we are living today in the BBT universe.
Therefore, as long as our scientists keep the BBT limitation of 13.4 BLY on the table, they wouldn't be able to see our real Universe.
You discuss about hope, so I have A HOPE:
I hope that one day our scientists would look at the Universe without the BBT filter.
I know for sure that once they would be able to ignore the BBT (even for just one day) and set all the real data on the table, they will find the ultimate theory for that Universe.

However, if they can't do it, I hope that someone will do it for them as it's the time to take the science from those BBT scientists that can't breakout from the BBT chain.

Face it, your knowledge is poor - and the knowledge of expert cosmologists is considerably less poor.
- But there are boundaries to our communal knowledge - get used to it!
- Recognizing the limits of your knowledge is the first step to expanding your boundaries.

As engineer with a master in communication, I have deep knowledge in real science.
I agree that my knowledge in the BBT science fiction is quite poor, but that is my biggest advantage over those BBT scientists.
I have no obligation to the BBT fiction, while they can't move their head without approval from the BBT "master".

I have already proved that the Black body radiation in the CMBR tells us that the Universe MUST be infinite.
Now, Dr. John Mather from Nasa confirms my understanding about the Infinite Universe.
So, why do you ignore his message?
As I have already knew that the Universe is infinite - the science community have to offer me a reward for this discovery.
However, it is very clear to me that it won't happen as our BBT scientists prefer to lock themselves at the BBT black box forever and ever...

[Bored chemist]

Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe.

True, but they can rule out some ideas- like yours- because it breaks the conservation laws.

I have no obligation to the BBT fiction

You seem much more interested in your own absurd fiction.

Therefore, it is quite obvious that

Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, obvious—and wrong.

BTW, you failed to address this.

Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.

How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Please answer it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see your reply.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:45:58
Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe..

True, but they can rule out some ideas- like yours- because it breaks the conservation laws.

In this thread we discuss about the BBT.
As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.

You seem much more interested in your own absurd fiction.

My own understanding is a direct outcome from the big black holes in that BBT. If that theory was real, no one in the whole Universe (including me) would even consider offering different ideas.

Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, obvious—and wrong.

In the case of the redshift it is 100% correct.
Just think about the following:
if each redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6 BLY, then as
1+ 1 = 2
then
6Bly + 6 Bly = 12 Bly

In the following article it is stated:

https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe.  The size of the observable universe, by definition, is the size given by assuming we can see to infinite redshift (where the recession velocity reaches the speed of light).  At infinite redshift, the factor involving z becomes unity and we have:
d  = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
    = (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc.                    (Size of visible universe)

That proves that those calculations are useless.
How our scientists dare to claim that "An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe" while we know that they don't have a basic clue about the real size of the Universe?

Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.
However, we clearly know that our Universe must be much bigger than that.
As Dr. John Mather from Nasa confirms that the universe is actually Infinite, that formula including all the BBT assumption should be set in the garbage.
The sooner is the better!!!

How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low ability
Therefore, you try to overcome your low ability by attacking other person.

In any case, your tactics are already clear to all of us.
You have no interest in real science. You have proved it.
You totally ignore all the evidences which I have offered.
You suffer from the internal illusions that you are the master of knowledge, while you clearly don't have a basic idea how to protect the BBT.
So, you keep attacking the personality of the other person instead of offering real answers.
It is very clear that there is no science in your messages.

It's time for you to consider psychological treatment for yourself.
The sooner is the better for you!

[Bored chemist]

As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.

That does not make sense.

It's like saying that because I can't tell what the weather will be tomorrow, I shouldn't set the alarm clock.

Why do you make nonsensical statements like that?

My own understanding is a direct outcome from the big black holes in that BBT.

You have completely failed to show any problems with the BBT.
On the other hand you have shown that you do not understand it.

Just think about the following:
if each redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6 BLY, then as
1+ 1 = 2
then
6Bly + 6 Bly = 12 Bly

I thought about it.
Imagine you are tiling a floor.
You know that a room that a room which is 6 feet square takes 36 tiles and you know that 6+6  = 12
So a room that is 12 feet by 12 feet will take 36 + 36 , i.e. 72 tiles.

Except it doesn't because areas are non linear- like red shifts.

This is a clear example that you do not understand the physics so you make silly mistakes.

That's why I think you are exhibiting D K syndrome.

Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low ability

That's a complete non sequitur.
I have, at least in the field of science, a lot of ability.
I'm a published author and I get paid more than the national average salary to do science.
So, with good reason, I don't have anything "due to your low ability".

You totally ignore all the evidences which I have offered.

All you have offered proof of, is your own inability to understand science (and, indeed, simple logic).

while you clearly don't have a basic idea how to protect the BBT.

I don't feel that I need to protect it.
As I have said before, I don't care if it gets replaced. In fact, I will be pleased because it will mean that science is making progress.

So, you keep attacking the personality of the other person instead of offering real answers.

No, I'm not attacking your personality.
I'm pointing out that you do not know what you're talking about.
That's really not the same thing.

It is very clear that there is no science in your messages.

Yes there is science there .
It's just you can't understand it because... let's face it, you aren't bright enough.

It's time for you to consider psychological treatment for yourself.

The one who, in spite of having no scientific training, thinks that he knows better than all the scientists in the world is the one who needs medical help.

BTW, you forgot to answer this

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:31:37
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:54:06
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


Please answer it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see your reply.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:53:05
As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.

That does not make sense.

You should improve your sense.

So, let me ask you step by step:
1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?

In the following explanation from NASA, it is stated that the Universe is an "infinite universe expanding into itself?
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."

Dr. John Mather, Nobel Laureate and James Webb Space Telescope Senior Project Scientist had also stated:
"The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time."

Yes or No?

2. As, our scientists from Nasa consider that the Universe is infinite, how could it be that based on the BBT math, the maximal size of the Universe is only 15.329349752BLY?

In the following article it is stated:

https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe.  The size of the observable universe, by definition, is the size given by assuming we can see to infinite redshift (where the recession velocity reaches the speed of light).  At infinite redshift, the factor involving z becomes unity and we have:
d  = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
    = (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc.                    (Size of visible universe)

That proves that those calculations are useless.
How our scientists dare to claim that "An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe" while we know that they don't have a basic clue about the real size of the Universe?

Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.

If your sense doesn't help you to understand the contradiction in the BBT, I really can't help you.

[Bored chemist]

You should improve your sense.

No.
You should write proper sentences.
Try again.

1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?

I don't know and I don't care.
Why are you trying to set up an argument from authority?
Don't you realise that logical fallacies are  invalid?

2. As, our scientists from Nasa consider that the Universe is infinite, how could it be that based on the BBT math, the maximal size of the Universe is only 15.329349752BLY?

That's just bollocks.
The visible universe is nearly 4 times as big.
So you are pretending the BBT says things that it does not say.
You are either not understanding it, or you are lying.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are honest.
In which case you are plainly mistaken.
And again, the grown-ups are thinking "clearly D K syndrome".

If your sense doesn't help you to understand the contradiction in the BBT, I really can't help you.

You could start by pointing out what you think those contradictions are.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:44:21
1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
I don't know and I don't care.

Ok
As you don't care about important information from NASA, then I don't care about all your messages.

[Bored chemist]

Ok
As you don't care about important information from NASA, then I don't care about all your messages.

But the information is not important.
For a very good reason; nobody knows if it's true.
He may work for NASA, but he still can't see beyond the visible universe.
He can't see if it is infinite or not.
So he can not tell you if there are unicorns out there.
So I don't need to worry about what he thinks.


Do you understand that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

nobody knows if it's true.
He may work for NASA, but he still can't see beyond the visible universe.
He can't see if it is infinite or not.
So he can not tell you if there are unicorns out there.
So I don't need to worry about what he thinks.

How do you dare to call Dr John which is Nobel Laureate as Nobody?
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this  new understanding for infinite universe.
I have full confidence that this understanding is a direct outcome from the most updated discovery at that NASA' telescope.
Please be aware that there is no question mark in that statement of infinite Universe.
He clearly claims for infinite Universe.
Therefore, as NASA fully supports Dr John and his team in the understanding that the Universe is infinite Universe, then the Universe must be Infinite.
For long time I clam that our Universe is infinite.
You and all the other BBT scientists were sure that this is unrealistic.
You all have considered me as nobody.
Now when NASA supports my understanding for infinite Universe - you call them nobody.
Shame On you.

You can't be considered as real scientist.
You have proved that you don't care about real science. You only care about BBT.
Therefore, you are a member in the "BBT scientists" choir.
You all would do whatever it takes to keep the BBT song forever and ever.

As you don't care about Dr John and his scientist team at NASA and as you does not care about real science - I really don't care about your messages any more!

Please stay away from my threads!

[pzkpfw]

...
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this  new understanding for infinite universe. ...

Are you going to pick and choose what science supported by NASA you agree with? They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

(Your apparent misunderstanding of the use of "nobody" by Bored chemist is quite odd. Was that actually some kind of sarcasm by you?)

[Bored chemist]

How do you dare to call Dr John which is Nobel Laureate as Nobody?

I didn't.


What I said was that nobodys knows if he is correct. (because nobody knows what's outside the visible universe,)
So most of your post was a rant about you not being able to read.

Learn to read; you will find it very helpful.

[Bored chemist]

(Your apparent misunderstanding of the use of "nobody" by Bored chemist is quite odd. Was that actually some kind of sarcasm by you?)

I think he deliberately"misunderstood" it so he could get stupidly shouty and not have to actually answer any questions.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

...
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this  new understanding for infinite universe. ...

Are you going to pick and choose what science supported by NASA you agree with? They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

It is very clear to me and to all of us that NASA and all their scientists fully support the BBT.
Even Dr John and his team fully support the BBT.
However, they have an obligation also for real science.
As they all know by now that the real science means - Infinite Universe, they were obliged to give us this message.
Never the less, in order to keep the BBT alive, Dr John has stated the following:

"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."

So, he doesn't claim that the BBT is incorrect, but he clearly claims that the Universe is infinite.
However, they all clearly know that the BBT is a theory for a finite universe.
I have proved that based on the BBT Math the maximal distance of any object (even if it has an infinite redshift) is only about 15 BLY.

Therefore, he came with a brillient idea of:  "infinite universe expanding into itself."
In that message he tells us that the Universe is infinite, but on the same message he tells us the the BBT is still alive.

However, it is very clear to me that he has no clue about the meaning of "expanding into itself" as it is just a message without any real validity.

So, NASA does understand that based on their most updated observations the Universe must be Infinite.
That understanding had been clearly delivered by Dr John.
It is also very clear to me that Dr John and most of the BBT scientist all over the planet try now to find a solution for that contradiction.
Their main task today is to fit the Infinite Universe into the BBT.
Therefore, Dr John also gave us a clue from the information to come as he stated:
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see."
So, they might even change the name of the BBT in order for it to fit in infinite Universe.
Dr John doesn't want to kill the BBT by his direct discovery that the universe is Infinite, but he tries to envelope that discovery/understanding  about the infinite Universe in some sort of idea that would keep the BBT alive.

In any case, I claim that the BBT can't live any more in infinite Universe.
It is a theory for a limited size Universe (15BLY maximal redshift size) and the whole math is based on this size.
Therefore, as NASA team have found that the Universe is clearly infinite, while the whole BBT is based on a math for a finite Universe, that BBT should be set in the garbage.

Any scientist who believes in real science must understand by now that the BBT is useless theory for infinite Universe.

However, as the science of astronomy is in the hand of BBT scientists, I'm quite sure that somehow Dr. John and all the other BBT scientists would find the way how to change the BBT' math in order for it to live under that breakthrough discovery of infinite Universe.
So as long as the astronomy science is under the control of those BBT scientists, the BBT would stay with us under any sort of new discovery that contradicts the BBT.
Nothing would be able to knock it down
Not even Dave Lev.
It is fully protected by those BBT scientists!!!

So you are fully correct
"They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory."  Forever and ever!!!