[Bored chemist]

Astronomy has the concept of the "Roche Limit"

It's important to recognise that this isn't just a concept.
It's the way that physics says that matter will behave.

And, it is also what we observe in reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Just by looking at images of the Triangulum Galaxy, we can see that it has never been inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.

As you represent the current knowledge of our scientists - it shows that they have no clue how spiral galaxy really works.

So, let me start by focusing on G Star density in the Spiral Arm:

http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm
"As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (not including white dwarf stellar remnants) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years or (or 30.7 parsecs) of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years (ly), while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years -- a volume of space that is seven times as large as the inner sphere within 50 ly of Sol. "

Based on this article:
In a sphere of 100 LY there are 512 G stars, while In a sphere of 50 LY there are 64 G stars.
Our scientists ignore this data, as they don't really understand its real meaning.
However, this data is the MOST important data about the spiral arm.

Let's set a simple calculation:
The volume of 100LY is 8 times bigger than the volume of 50 LY.
512 /8 = 64 G star
Therefore
The average density of G star per any 50 Ly in our aria is 64 stars.

Our scientists see that information - but they think that it is just due to random chance.
Sorry - there is no random chance in the spiral arm.
This density is vital to keep the stars in the arm.
So, we are bonded by gravity to Orion arm and that fixed density of stars keeps us in the arm.

Our scientists came with the imagination of "Density wave theory".
They assume that stars could move in and out from the arm.
They are very wrong about it.
In order for a star to stay in the spiral arm it must be located at an aria with a fixed density.
We are lucky that the Sun still hold itself in the Orion Arm due to that G stars density..
Outside the arm there are relatively big arias with zero stars density.
Therefore, any star that will dare to more outwards from the arm would be kicked away from the spiral arm and from the galactic disc at ultra high velocity.
However, between the arms we might find gateways and bridges of star. That is feasible as long as they keep the requested density.
So, we are located at a distance of 28 KLY from the galactic center.
At this location the thickness of the arm is about 1000LY.
As we look inwards - the arm gets thicker. At the Ring the thickness of the arm is about 3000LY
As we look outwards - the arm get thinner. At the most outwards the thickness is only 400LY.
Our scientists can't explain those densities and thickness.
They clearly know that a SMBH with only 4*10^6 Sun mass can't hold by OM gravity a star at a distance of 28KLY and they are fully correct.
However, as they couldn't explain how Newton gravity force of the ordinary matter could work at spiral galaxy - they came with the imagination that is called - Dark matter.
I hope that we all agree that there is no dark matter in our real Universe.
The dark matter is just a simple statement that our scientists really DON'T KNOW how the spiral galaxy works.

So, the fixed density & thickness proves that there is an order in the spiral galaxy. Each star holed itself in the arm by local gravity forces.

This is a key element in the spiral galaxy.
However, this isn't good enough as we also need to explain the fixed orbital velocity of the star at almost any radius - starting at the ring up to the last point of the arm.
To achieve that fixed (or almost fixed) orbital velocity (at about 220Km/s) stars MUST migrate outwards.
Therefore, as the stars migrate outwards they also move backwards. This creates the Unique shape of the spiral arm.
Therefore, the Idea of the density wave is a pure fiction.
Hence, the Dark matter and the density wave should meet each other at the garbage.

So, we have proved that stars must migrate outwards in order to keep a constant orbital velocity and the spiral shape.
However, as all stars are drifting outwards - new stars must be created at the center of the galaxy.
In order to create new stars - new particles and molecular must be created.

So, the fixed density of the G stars and the thickness in spiral arms are a clear indications that new particles are created by the SMBH as Einstein had stated!!!

This leaves us with a choice of possible explanations. Two of the obvious choices are:
1. If the Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny galaxy, emitted from Andromeda, then it would have started off inside the Roche limit of Andromeda, and would never have made it out.
2. However, if the Triangulum Galaxy had started out as a fully-formed independent galaxy with its own spiral structure, then it could last many billions of years in orbit around Andromda, or taking a complex path through our local cluster. It would retain its shape and content, provided it didn't stray inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.

Actually there is a third option
3.  Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny BH. Please be aware that just at the center of the Milky Way our scientists observed more than 10,000 BH. All of those BH must migrate outwards. Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time. So, that Tiny Triangulum' BH which had been born near the Andromeda' SMBH found its way outwards from the galaxy. As it drifts outwards it gains more and more mass. At some point it was holding a dwarf galaxy that was orbiting around it Mother - Andromeda. Over time as it moves further away it gains more mass and now it is a Spiral galaxy boy with about 40 B stars.
His Mother - Andromeda looks at him from 782,000 LY and she is very proud from her baby.

[Bored chemist]

. All of those BH must migrate outwards.

Things no not fall upwards.

Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time.

That is impossible due to the conservation laws.

So, that Tiny Triangulum' BH which had been born near the Andromeda' SMBH found its way outwards from the galaxy

No
Things fall down, not up.

As it drifts outwards it gains more and more mass.

That's still a breach of the conservation laws.

Telling the same fairy tale twice does not make it true.

Over time as it moves further away it gains more mass

A third repeat does not help.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 26/11/2020 17:13:21
. All of those BH must migrate outwards.
Things no not fall upwards.

Well, as there is no dark matter in our real Universe, any star that is located at the spiral arm must hold itself there by gravity.
Therefore, as long as you would believe in that imagination that is called dark matter, you won't understand where is upwards and where is down wards.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 26/11/2020 17:13:21
Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time.

That is impossible due to the conservation laws.

It is impossible that as a scientist you keep rejecting Einstein Theory!!!
Einstein had fully confirmed the Idea of New Particle Creation or in short.
This Theory should be called - ENPC Theory (Einstein New Particle Created)

You don't have to argue with me.
Now you face Mr Einstein.
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!

This Theory is the based for the entire Universe.
It gives perfect answer for any observation in small and in large scale.
From now on I have no intention to argue with you any more about the ENPC theory as this theory is Einstein Theory. .
However, you are more than welcome to offer any sort of observation that based on your understanding should knock down that Einstein Theory.
So, as Einstein ENPC theory explains the entire Universe at very small scale and at very large scale, let's compare it to the BBT

A. Spiral galaxy
In order to explain the spiral galaxy our scientists are using two main imaginations which are called - Dark matter and Density wave.
Let's see how those imaginations could help for the spiral galaxy shape
1. 3KPC Ring - Those two imaginations theories and the BBT can't offer any explanation for this ring in the spiral galaxy.
2. Bar - Same issue. Those two imagination ideas can't explain it
3. Fixed density of G stars at the spiral arms - Those two imaginations also can't explain it
4. Thickness of the Arm (3,000Ly at the Ring and only 400 Ly at the further most location of the arm) - Same answer. Those two imaginations can't explain this observation.
5. SMBH is a picky eater - Those two imaginations and the BBT can't really explain how could it be that the SMBH is so massive while it ejects outwards most of its food.
6. Ultra high Hydrogen concentration near the SMBH - Those two imaginations and the BBT can't explain why most of the free Hydrogen in the whole galaxy is concentrated near the SMBH.
7. Spiral shape - in order to show that the density wave could create the spiral shape our scientists have used a simulation which starts at a very thin and concentrated disc full with stars. That starting point is imagination. In real Universe the galaxy can't start from that point. In any case, it takes several cycles to achieve the image of the spiral. However, as they continue with the simulation, the spiral shape breaks down. So, just for a very short brief of time they have got the spiral shape. Therefore it is clear that the dark matter and the density wave imaginations including the BBT can't offer real explanation to the spiral shape.

Dark matter - Our scientists didn't find any real observation for that imagination. As they have no clue how spiral galaxy works, they just invent an idea of dark matter while for almost each galaxy they need to use a special formula of that imagination.
How long are you going to believe in that fiction?

A third repeat does not help.

A third repeat does not help. Einstein Theory is the Ultimate answer for our Universe as it gives perfect fit to ANY observation.
So again - please feel free to show any contradiction.

In any case, let's close the small scale understanding based on Andromeda and Triangular
The following image represents the Highlight of the new born galaxy activity in our Universe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
We clearly see that Triangulum still orbits around its mother - Andromeda while they are located at 782,000 Ly away from each other.
They are still connected to each other by umbilical cord that we call Hydrogen bridge
That umbilical cord flows Triangulum as it still orbits around Andromeda and drifts away from it.
Therefore, we can claim the following:
Van - Velocity vector of Andromeda as it cross the open space.
Vtr -   Velocity vector of Triangulum
While
Vtr = Van + Vtr-c
Vtr-c = The current orbital velocity vector of Triangulum around Andromeda.
At some point of time Triangulum would be totally disconnect from its Mother and cross the open space with the last orbital momentum that it might get from Andromeda.
At that time we would be able to claim that Triangulum is crossing the space at the following velocity:
Vtr = Van + Vtr-f
Vtr-f = Final drifting velocity of Triangulum from Andromeda.

Therefore
Any galaxy in the Universe is based on its mother velocity + the ejected velocity.

The current distance between Triangulum to Andromeda is 782,000LY.
Let assume that when the distance would be 1 M LY Triangulum would be totally disconnect from the gravity of his mother - Andromeda
That distance is called D-f (Final distance to disconnect from the Mother gravity force)
At that moment we can claim that:
Vtr = Van + Vtr-f.
We know that Van = 700Km/s
Let's assume that Vtr-f = 200Km/s (and it is exactly in the same direction as Van velocity vector)
Hence
Vtr = 700Km + 200Kms = 900 Km/sec

If Vtr-f is in the opposite direction of Van
Then
Vtr = 700 - 200 = 500 Km/s

So, we clearly see that galaxies are moving in space as Rocket Over Rocket.
The direction of the final ejection would set the total final velocity ofa galaxy.

Hence
In the Future, the baby galaxy (let's call it Ba galaxy) of  Triangulum would cross the space at

Vba = Vtr + Vba-f = Van + Vtr-f + Vba-f

Hence, the Velocity of Andromeda would be the base on the entire density of baby galaxies over babies to come.

The final ejection from a baby galaxy from its Mother would set the final velocity vector of a galaxy.
However, we still need to understand how long it took to Triangulum in order to evolve from a tiny BH which had been born near the core of its Mather - Andromeda.
This time is called - Tgl (The time that it takes to form full Spiral galaxy from a tiny BH)

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on that data I would like to answer Halc' question:

Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).

Again, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?

Let's go back in time up to the Infinity.
Let's assume that due to a Big Bang one tiny BH had been created in the empty infinite Universe.
Let's also assume that the velocity vector of that first BH with regards to the space was zero.
Based on Einstein ENPC Theory, that BH would increase its mass over time.
At some point it would become a massive spiral galaxy with large no of baby galaxies around it.
Each one of those new born galaxies would be ejected randomly to different direction.
So, each baby galaxy will be ejected from his mother at a velocity which is Vab-f
In order for him to be mature, the minimal time that is requested is Tgl.
At the time its distance to his mother would be D-f (based on Andromeda Triangulum example that distance is 1Mly)

In order to understand how our universe works in large scale, let's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.
Let's also assume that the final ejection velocity vector is fixed for all the new born galaxies.

So, after the second Generations grandchild Galaxy would move away from his grandmother galaxy (which is considered as the first galaxy) at a velocity which is equal to 2 * Vba-f.
The minimal time that is needed to set that grandchild is equal to 2 * Tgl.
However, the distance from the first galaxy is based on the following formula:
D(distance for the second generation) = Tgl * Vba-f + 2* D-f
The age of the Universe at that time would be = 2* Tgl
So, after n Generations we get a universe with the following feature:
Universe Age = n * Tgl
V(velocity of the n baby with regards to the first galaxy) = n * Vba-f.
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* D-f
As D-f = 1Mly
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* 100Mly
That formula represents the expansion of galaxies in space.

After 10,000 generations -

Age = 10,000 * Tgl
V(velocity of the n baby with regards to the first galaxy) = 10,000 * Vba-f.
If Vba-f = 200Kms/sec than
V = 10,000* 200Km/s = 2BKm/s
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (9,999)Tgl^ (10,000 * Vba-f) + 10,000* 100Mly
D = (9,999)Tgl^ (10,000 * Vba-f) + 10Bly

Now, let's go back to Halc question:

Quote
Again, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?

Well, Hubble law is just estimation.
a galaxy with a redshift of 13 is surly moving away at velocity which is 13 times the speed of light.
However, the correct distance to that galaxy is not clear to us.
It is based on the following formula.
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* D-f
However, that is the distance to the first galaxy.
As all the galaxies in the Universe might be created from that single first BH/galaxy, and all of them are moving randomly to any direction it is very difficult to estimate the real distance to that specific galaxy relative to our location.
So, if is is moving 13 times the speed of light, then 14 By ago it was closer by 13*14BLY with regards to its current location.
However, as we don't know how far it is located today, we can't know how far it was 14 By ago

[evan_au]

let's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.

This assumption violates the observation that the Triangulum galaxy is in orbit around the Andromeda galaxy.

[Bored chemist]

Well, as there is no dark matter in our real Universe

If you are going to say that, you have to provide a credible alternative to explain the observations of things like spiral galaxies.
All you have done is post nonsense.

Einstein Theory is the Ultimate answer for our Universe as it gives perfect fit to ANY observation.
So again - please feel free to show any contradiction.

Sure.
If that theory fitted the data, we would be using it.
It doesn't.
So the "observation" you ask for is simply- "The Universe".

The biggest most obvious contradiction is that it breaks the conservation of energy/ mass.

You keep trying to pretend that isn't a problem but it is.
It's mathematically proven to be true.
So you need to show an error in Noether's maths (and you aren't going to do that, because you don't understand it.

You really should stop now.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

let's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.

This assumption violates the observation that the Triangulum galaxy is in orbit around the Andromeda galaxy.

You have missed the following image from Nasa
Please look again at that image. We clearly see the expected circular movment of Triangulum around Andromeda in the time to come. That circular movment represents the orbital momentum of Triangulum around Andromeda.

n any case, let's close the small scale understanding based on Andromeda and Triangular
The following image represents the Highlight of the new born galaxy activity in our Universe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
We clearly see that Triangulum still orbits around its mother - Andromeda while they are located at 782,000 Ly away from each other.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:04:22
Well, as there is no dark matter in our real Universe

If you are going to say that, you have to provide a credible alternative to explain the observations of things like spiral galaxies.
All you have done is post nonsense.

I have already did as follow:

Once they accept the idea of new creation particles - they will know how suppermassive black holes reached their current size without eating any matter for outside.
They would know that new particles pair are created near the event of horizon. Both with positive Mass but with carry negative charged with regards to each other.
They would know how that the supper massive BH eats one particle out of the two and ejects the other one to the accretion disc. Therefore, it is called - picky eater.
So it isn't a picky eater as it is eating 50% from all the new particles that it generates.
That 50% of the falling in particles converts a tinny BH into a Supper massive BH over time.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called as the Excretion disc.
Our scientists would know why most of the Hydrogen atoms in the galaxy are located near the SMBH (mainly in those giant gas clouds as G1-G6).
They would know that the new stars that are formed in those gas clouds are drifting outwards.
In this process, they set the shape of the spiral arms.
No need for dark matter for that.
The OM is good enough to support any spiral galaxy.

So how it really works?
1. New born stars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
The aria near the SMBH is full with gas cloud, new born stars and BH The central bulge is pack with Billions of new born stars and dust. We clearly see the new born star forming activity in the gas cloud G1-G6 near the SMBH.

2. Stars outside the galaxy - for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside. Actually, there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies. All of those stars could be created only in the galaxy.
Hence, over time all the stars which had been created in the Bulge near the SMBH would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
3. Binary star system - Braycenter
Our scientists claim that based on clear observation all the new born stars in the gas clouds (as G1 to G6) share a braycenter with at least one more star. So, it is exected that also our Sun should have a twin star/BH and they orbit around their Braycenter.

4. Rotational Curve
In order to understand how the siral galaxy works, let's understand the data of the Rotational Curve
Let's look at the following diagram:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Decomposition-of-the-rotation-curve-of-the-Milky-Way-into-the-components-bulge-stellar_fig4_45893184
A. Bulge - Up to 1KPC
At that stage each star orbits at different direction and at relatively high velocity. Most of the orbital cycles are elliptical.
We see that at the bar the dispersion in the orbital velocity of the stars is quite minimal. The radius of the Bulge is 1KPC which is equivalent to 3,000Ly
B.  3KPC ring. At this location the orbital velocity is the minimal (about 180Km/s)
The thickness of the ring is 1KPC (which is 3,00LY - similar to the radius of the Bulge)
C. Bar - 1KPC to 3KPC
At this stage the stars gets the flatness of the galactic disc.
As they drift outwards from the Bulge (1KPC) to the ring (3KPC) the thickness stay at a maximal level of 1Kpc.
So, the Bar acts as funnel that delivers the stars from the Bulge to the Ring.
It is also important to highlight that at the ring all the stars orbits in almost perfect circular radius (3KPC) around the center. So, from mainly elliptical orbit around the center all the stars at the ring are orbiting in almost a perfect circular.
The ring itself is full with stars. There are no gaps between the stars in that ring. This is very vital for the functionality of the spiral galaxy.
D. First section of the Spiral arms - 3KPC to about 4.5 KPC
At that section the velocity of the stars starts to increase from the Minimal 180Km/s to the maximal velocity of about 220Km/s. However, please remember that the thickness of the arm is decreasing as we move outwards. At 3K C the thickness is 1KPC (3000LY)
F.  Mid section of the Spiral arms - 4.5KPC to about 9KPC.
The velocity stays almost the same at about 220Km/s. However, we know that at 9KPC (our location) the thickness drops to only 1,000Ly
E. Last section of the arm - 9KPC to about 15KPC
We clearly see a dispersion in the orbital velocity from almost 150 Km/s till 230Km/s
Please be aware that at the end of the spiral arm (12KPC to 15KPC) the thickness could drop to almost 400LY.
F. After the Spiral arms - All the stars that had been ejected from the arms are now moving upwards or downwards relatively to the galactic disc.

Now for the explanation of this observation
The density wave theory can't explain that full observation of velocity and thickness relative to the radius.
Our scientists don't know how the Bar had been formed and what is its main function in the galaxy.

So, how the Einstein ENPC and Newton gravity force are working at spiral galaxy?
The Ring is the main element of the spiral galaxy.
All the stars in that ring sets significant gravity force inwards and outwards.
Therefore, any star that gets to the end of the Bulge (1KPC) stars to feel the impact of the ring Gravity force.
As the stars is moving to the direction of the Ring (in the Bar section), the gravity force of the SMBH is decreasing while the gravity force of the Ring is increasing. Therefore, the orbital velocity of the star is decreasing from almost 230m/s at the edge of the Bulge to about 180Km/s at the Ring.
The Bar acts as a funnel which delivers new stars to the Ring, while each star finds its location in the ring as a falling ball in a Rolette.
Once the star gets to the ring it is gravity bonded to the inwards side of the ring and adds its mass gravity to the ring.
However, at the same time other stars at the outwards side of the ring drifts outwards to the direction of the Spiral arms.
Therefore, the total stars mass in the ring is more or less constant.
That ring holds by gravity all the spiral arms around it.
If the ring will break, the spiral arms would be disconnected from the galaxy.

With regards to the orbital velocity at the spiral arm:

Let's start with the assumption that the arm is rigid.
So, each star stays at the same location/radius at the arm during all his life time.
Let's assume that S1 is located at R1
Hence
P1 = 2π R
If the rigid disc sets one full cycle in T time, then the orbital velocity of S1 is:
V1 = P1/T
For S2 which is located at a radius R2 = 1.1R1, we get:
P2 = 2π R2 = 2π 1.1R1 = 1.1P1
Therefore, the orbital velocity of S2 is:
V2 = P2/T = 1.1V1
So, it is clear that if the orbital velocity of S2 is higher than the velocity of S1 by 1.1.

This represents a Rigid disc.
However, the spiral arm isn't rigid.
The stars in the arm are always drifting outwards.
Therefore, in order to keep the same orbital velocity at any spot in the spiral arms, the distance that a star should cross at any given moment of time should be fixed.
Therefore, for example let assume that:
S1 is located very close to the ring (radius R1) and set full cycle at time T
The distance that it crosses in T is:
P1 = 2π R1
In order for S2 which is located at a radius of R2 = 1.1R1 to move exactly at the same velocity as S1, it must cross the same distance as S1 and at the same time.
Hence,
For V1 to be equal to V2 we must set the following:
P2 = P1 = 2π R1 = 2π R2/1.1.
So, while S1 sets full cycle, S2 sets 1/1.1 = 0.9 cycle
That is the based for the spiral shape.
The stars are drifting outwards in the spiral arm and by doing so, they decrease their orbital velocity (with regards to rigid arm).
As the stars are drifting outwards the density of G stars should go down and the thickness of the arm should be lower.
As the stars get to the end of the arm, the local gravity is too weak to hold them in the arm. Therefore they should be disconnected from the arm and from the galactic disc.

Please be aware that the gravity force outside the arm would be too low to hold the star.
Therefore, if a star would drift outwards the arm it will be ejected from the galaxy as a rocket.
Actually, the sun is located quite close to the edge of the Orion Arm (about 200Ly?).
If we would look carefully, we won't find any star after that edge till the nearby arm. It is a desert over there. I hope that we won't come too close to that edge as we might be kicked out from the arm.

Once we understand that, we actually understand how spiral galaxy really works.

So the "observation" you ask for is simply- "The Universe".
The biggest most obvious contradiction is that it breaks the conservation of energy/ mass.

If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.
In any case this is the last time that I respond to that kind of message as you and all the BBT scientists shouldn't reject Einstein ENPC Theory!

[Bored chemist]

If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.

Well, there are two things there.
The first is that energy/mass conservation is observed.
The other thing is that I'm not relying on observation.
It has been proved mathematically to be true.

Once they accept the idea of new creation particles

I said "credible".
That's not a description you can apply to something which is proven to be wrong.

"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"

That's an interesting phenomenon.
You do realise that it shows that the continuous generation idea is wrong, don't you?

Because that idea relies on particles (and thus stars) being generated evenly spread throughout the universe.

There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 18:26:13
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"

That's an interesting phenomenon.
You do realise that it shows that the continuous generation idea is wrong, don't you?
Because that idea relies on particles (and thus stars) being generated evenly spread throughout the universe.
There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen?

Why do you think that particles and stars should be generated evenly?
Each galaxy in the Universe would generate the no. of stars that it can generate.
Some might be very productive and some much less.
Therefore we get the following One-year WMAP image of background cosmic radiation (2003).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe#/media/File:Baby_Universe.jpg
We clearly see some "hot spots" and some "cold spots".
With regards to the CMBR.
You have stated that the CMBR is actually a microwave.
Each galaxy in the Universe radiates its unique microwave radiation.
As that radiation can cross longer distances than light, we get that radiation from further away galaxies.
Therefore, we can get this kind of radiation from very far away galaxies that carry a redshift of up to 1100.
The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 18:26:13
If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.

Well, there are two things there.
The first is that energy/mass conservation is observed.
The other thing is that I'm not relying on observation.
It has been proved mathematically to be true.

As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?
Can you please Prove  mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?
We all know that the BBT does not offer any real science solution for that problem.
Some Scientists claim that at the early time the physics of law didn't work and therefore, we could get that energy for free.
Some claim that it isn't our problem to deal with it as the BBT starts after the bang.
Some other claim that God has delivered the requested energy. So, God was responsible to deliver the Energy and the BBT scientists are responsible to show how the Universe works after getting that energy from God.
I don't know which kind of overview do support.
For those people who believe in God I can tell that if God could deliver the energy before the bang, why he can't also deliver the energy after the bang. If God could deliver so much energy in a brief of moment for the BBT Theory, why he can't deliver just few particles for Einstein theory?.
For those people who claim that it is not their problem to deal with the energy issue before the BBT, I would advice to continue with this approach after the BBT.
For those people that claim that the science law didn't work before the Bang I would advice not to use the science law after the bang..

In any case, even if somehow based on the BBT we get that energy free of charge and bypass the energy/mass conservation law, our scientists would still have the following problems:
1. They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.
2. They can't tell us if the energy that had been given to us includes also the energies of dark matter and dark energy.
3. If the darkness energies were already there, how each energy knew the function of its destiny? Why 70% of the energy had been transformed to dark energy, 26% to dark matter and ONLY 4% to OM? What kind of science law split the functionality of the energies just to meet our exaltations for spiral galaxies and acceleration in the expansion.

Sorry, the BBT does not represent any sort of real science.
It is pure imagination as it does not offer any real science law for that flag of energy/mass conservation.

However, Einstein clearly offers a valid science law.
He claims that by using very minor cosmological constant in his formula, new particles could be created.
So, we have real Einstein formula which shows that new particles could be created, while based on the BBT our scientists can't offer a real formula even for one new particle creation.

Therefore, from now on, when you hear the energy/mass conservation law - please grab all the BBT believers and hide under the table or in a shelter.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I hope that by now we all understand that the BBT is none relevant theory.


In the following article it is stated that:
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1028/Do-Catholics-have-to-believe-in-the-Big-Bang-now
 "In fact, it was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who in 1927 first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory. Later, Pope Pius XII asserted evolution and Catholic doctrine are not contrary, and St. John Paul II backed him."

So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT as it is even stated:
"Pope Francis splashed in controversial waters Monday, saying the Big Bang theory supports evidence of a divine creator."
However, in that article it is stated that after all the pope doesn't support the BBT as:

"The beginning of the world was not chaotic, he continued, but rooted in love. And beliefs in creation and evolution can co-exist".
"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."


I fully support that breakthrough understanding that The beginning of the world was not chaotic and the Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve..

Wow what a great message!!!
No room for chaotic beginning in the Universe as a big Bang but evolution in nature which fully correlated with Einstein theory of new particles in order to show how the Universe had been evolved.

Actually, the BBT contradicts the existence of God.
Based on the BBT, the Universe that we see today would be expended to the infinity in the Future.
The space would come back to the darkness as all the galaxies would move away from each other.
At some point of time we won't see any galaxy in the open space, while most of the stars would die.
So, based on the BBT the whole creation of the Universe would be destroy in the Future.
Anyone who believes in God does understand that this is not an option.

God wouldn't allow the Universe to fall back into darkness as the galaxies are moving away from each other.
Therefore, Einstein theory for New created particles should keep our universe forever and ever.
That theory proves that the Universe is infinity in time and space as in each new created particle there is a finger of God.
Therefore, Einstein ENPC is the ultimate Theory for the evolvement of the Universe and fully correlated to the Pope vision and for anyone that believes in God.

[Bored chemist]

Why do you think that particles and stars should be generated evenly?

I already told you that- and you quoted it.
But you didn't answer the question it raises.

There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen by?

As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?
Can you please Prove  mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?

I already explained that.
The maths allows departures from the law of conservation if, and only if, there is a break in temporal symmetry.
The Start of the Universe is such a break.
If the Universe has an end then that would be another.
But that's it.
Those two events are the only "free passes" you get.

Now, back to the point.
How do you avoid it?

Each galaxy in the Universe radiates its unique microwave radiation.

Yes, So do you and I, so does the Sun and they are all clearly different from the CMBR. They are, obviously all irrelevant.

As that radiation can cross longer distances than light,

No, light and microwaves have the same range. Why do you say things like that?
Don't you realise that the scientists will point out that you are posting nonsense?
Do you enjoy being laughed at?

Therefore, we can get this kind of radiation from very far away galaxies that carry a redshift of up to 1100.

There can't be a "therefore" which is based on a falsehood.

You must be a real joy in the pub "two plus two is five therefore you owe me a drink".

The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.

that's impossible.
The spectrum of microwaves is wrong.
Again; you are ignoring the facts.

We all know that the BBT does not offer any real science solution for that problem

It offers a perfectly good explanation.
The trouble is that you can't understand it.
We are back to the root problem here; You suffer from D K syndrome.

Some Scientists claim that at the early time the physics of law didn't work and therefore, we could get that energy for free.
Some claim that it isn't our problem to deal with it as the BBT starts after the bang.
Some other claim that God has delivered the requested energy. So, God was responsible to deliver the Energy and the BBT scientists are responsible to show how the Universe works after getting that energy from God.

And the scientists who actually understand the conservation law  say- correctly- that it does not apply in the case where time is unsymmetrical.

Why did you ignore the real science?
Or is it just that you can't understand it?

Some other claim that God has ...

A scientist who claims that God might have done something would need to start by proving that there is a God.
That hasn't happened yet.
Do you understand that "Godidit" isn't science?

For those people who believe in God I can tell that if God could deliver the energy before the bang, why he can't also deliver the energy after the bang. If God could deliver so much energy in a brief of moment for the BBT Theory, why he can't deliver just few particles for Einstein theory?.
For those people who claim that it is not their problem to deal with the energy issue before the BBT, I would advice to continue with this approach after the BBT.
For those people that claim that the science law didn't work before the Bang I would advice not to use the science law after the bang..

Again, you have missed out the actual scientists.
We know that the conservation law depends on a symmetry and that symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang.
It's the same law saying the same thing.
If you have symmetry you have conservation.
If you don't have symmetry you don't have conservation.

Do you not see that?
It's not helpful when  you ignore the actual scientific explanation; why do you do it?

They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.

Nor do you; but at least science knows that it doesn't know.
You on the other hand, are pretending that you know what happens outside the observable universe.

The grown ups know that you must be making that up because... it isn't observable.

They can't tell us if the energy that had been given to us includes also the energies of dark matter and dark energy.

We can; it has. That's what the observations show us.

What kind of science law split the functionality of the energies just to meet our exaltations for spiral galaxies and acceleration in the expansion.

One which makes deductions from observations, rather than making up impossible tosh.

However, Einstein clearly offers a valid science law.
He claims that by using very minor cosmological constant in his formula, new particles could be created.

Close, but you have it the wrong way round.
He said that if we had spontaneous generation of particles then we could add a constant to the formula.

However, we know that the generation of new particles is impossible.
So we know he was wrong.

Therefore, from now on, when you hear the energy/mass conservation law - please grab all the BBT believers and hide under the table or in a shelter.

Are you familiar with the works of Douglas Adams- a comic writer?
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/The_Outside_of_the_Asylum

You think you are Wonko the sane.

I hope that by now we all understand that the BBT is none relevant theory.

I hope that you learn the difference between "none" and "non".
I also hope that you learn some science one day.

So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT

Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.

I fully support that breakthrough understanding that The beginning of the world was not chaotic

The scientists, on the other hand support belief in evidence.

Actually, the BBT contradicts the existence of God.

Not really, but it hardly matters.
If it did, then I rather suspect we would have heard before now.
And also we would be hearing it from someone who actually understands the BBT.
You don't.

Anyone who believes in God does understand that this is not an option.

That's their problem; not science's.
It's no different in principle from all the other suffering.

Anyway, before you can use "God" as a basis for any argument, you have to prove that He exists.
Good luck with that.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.

Nor do you; but at least science knows that it doesn't know.
You on the other hand, are pretending that you know what happens outside the observable universe.

The grown ups know that you must be making that up because... it isn't observable.

How those grownups "scientists" could offer a theory for a Universe without knowing its size???
That by itself proves that they aren't grownups yet and their theory is useless.
Actually, we all know why those grownups avoid that key question.
The BBT is a theory for a fairly compact Universe.
Just few years ago those grownups were very sure that its maximal size is 92BY. They even called it "Observable" just to confuse us.
Now our scientists clearly know that it must be bigger than that. In one article it was stated 256BY, in other 1Trillion Year and even infinity.
I hope that those grownups know that the BBT can't fit for infinity Universe.
Actually, it can't fit even for the 92Bly universe..
So, again as they clearly don't know - please don't claim that they know. Without clear message about the size of the Universe any theory is just nonsense!!!
Based on Einstein ENPC, the universe must be INFINITE.
We can discuss if it meets the observation or not, but you have a clear size.
However, as the BBT doesn't offer any real size - we shouldn't even consider it as a theory.
Please - as long as those grownups refuse to offer a size for our Universe - any size, that theory should be set on hold at the garbage site.
Hence, any real scientist in the whole planet shouldn't even consider the BBT as an alternative theory - while it can't offer a size for the Universe.
From this moment - lets agree that a theory for a Universe without size is a useless Theory!

Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?
Can you please prove mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?

I already explained that.
The maths allows departures from the law of conservation if, and only if, there is a break in temporal symmetry.
The Start of the Universe is such a break.
If the Universe has an end then that would be another.
But that's it.
Those two events are the only "free passes" you get.

Sorry - that is a pure Nonsense.
So you actually confirm that in order to get the energy for the BBT, you must "departure from the law of conservation"!
Hence, based on the law of conservation you fully confirm that no energy could be supply for the BBT.
However, you give the BBT a waiver from that law by some imagination that is called "symmetry":

We know that the conservation law depends on a symmetry and that symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang.
It's the same law saying the same thing.
If you have symmetry you have conservation.
If you don't have symmetry you don't have conservation.

Hence, based on your Knowledge the "symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang".
How do you dare to claim that kind of message?
How do you know that the "symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang" while we don't know if there was a big bang 14 BY ago?
Had you been there? Do we have a record for that Asymmetry?
Sorry - this is one more  wrong message from scientist which have no clue how our Universe really works.

In any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.

Please remember that Einstein told us that
M= Ec^2
Hence, for one unite of mass, you need to multiply the energy by c^2.
So, in order to qualify your unrealistic BBT theory you mission is to estimate the total mass in the entire Universe
Let's assume that the size of our Universe is just 92BLY (just in order to make it easy for you).
Try to find how many galaxies there are in this sphere. Please don't forget that for any star in a galaxy, there must be at least one outside.
Please advice the total Ordinary matter in that universe size and multiply it by c^2.
We also know that 99.99..9 of the new created particles after the bang had been eliminated each other.
So, that total mass represents only the 0.000..1 from the energy that was needed for the BBT.
Therefore, the energy that was needed for the BBT in order to set the ordinary matter is:

E = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1)

Add to that imaginary energy, the Dark Matter and the dark energy

E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy

Now find the Math that would confirm the Asymmetry delivery of such energy free of charge.

However, don't forget that even if you would prove by Math that this energy is achievable, you can convert it to real particle without Electromagnetic transformation.
As in the Early Universe which is based on Asymmetry there were no transformation tools - you won't be able to set even one particle with that energy.

If this is not good enough for you, let's discuss on the expansion/inflation of the space.
Please be aware that the space is fixed.
There is no way to expand the space even by one Pico millimeter. Not in small scale and not in large scale..
We also know that nothing could move faster than the speed of light.
However, in order to believe in the BBT based on the inflation theory the Universe was expanding at 50 billion times the speed of light.
Please show the math that confirms that imagination.
Hence - it's time to stop the whole BBT imagination. Why don't you set it in the garbage???

Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
As that radiation can cross longer distances than light,

No, light and microwaves have the same range. Why do you say things like that?

There is a difference between visible Light to Microwave in the frequencies and in the photon energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
So, although Microwaves travel by line-of-sight at the speed of light it has different characteristics from visable light.
Based on those different characteristics we can measure the microwave energy from very far away galaxies.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.

that's impossible.
The spectrum of microwaves is wrong.
Again; you are ignoring the facts.

Sorry, there is no error in the microwave spectrum.
A redshift of 1100 indicates that the radiation arrives from a very far away location.
So you are ignoring the facts.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:56:57
So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT

Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.

How do you dare to insulate the Pope Francis and the Catholic Church Customs?
His wisdom is much superior than yours.
There might be millions or even billions of people that might also be insulted from your message.
Please - you have to apologize.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:56:57
So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT

Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.

How do you dare to insulate the Pope Francis and the Catholic Church Customs?
His wisdom is much superior than yours.
There might be millions or even billions of people that might also be insulted from your message.
Please - you have to apologize.

You forgot to answer the question.

Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.

There's no reason why I should apologise for asking a question and making a statement.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, there is no error in the microwave spectrum.
A redshift of 1100 indicates that the radiation arrives from a very far away location.
So you are ignoring the facts.

If the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.
It would not be the same in all directions.
But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.

How do you dare to claim that kind of message?

No "daring" is required.
It's obvious.
If the universe had a "start" then time after that start is not the same as "time before that start" (which does not exist).
That breaks the symmetry and permits a breach of the law of conservation.
Since nothing else permits such a breach, we know there must have been a start,.

There is a difference between visible Light to Microwave in the frequencies and in the photon energy.

Yes, and you should understand that I already know that so you should realise that you don't need to post that.
And you should realise that , since I know that, you pointing it out can not change my view on the issue.
So why did you waste your time typing it?
Are you not clever enough to follow simple deductive logic?
Incidentally,  light and microwaves have the same range.
You are wrong to say otherwise.

n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.

Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

there were no transformation tools

None is needed.

We also know that nothing could move faster than the speed of light.

In which case Olber's paradox proves that the universe is finite in extent or age.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Size of the Universe -
Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.
As the BBT can't specify the real size if the Universe, then this theory is Nonsense.
If you can't tell us what the size of the Universe is - we can't verify if the BBT is correct or incorrect.
Therefore, this BBT theory is useless and we just wasting our time on irrelevant theory.

In any case, let me prove why the BBT is not relevant also based on the following aspects:

CMBR

If the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.
It would not be the same in all directions.

Our scientists have already confirmed that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous in long scale.
Therefore, we actually get almost the same CMBR radiation from all directions.
However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.

Distance - Based on the BBT if we look all the way to the left, we might see a galaxy (let's call it Galaxy A) at a maximal distance of about 13.4 BLY. The same issue when we look at the left and we see a galaxy B. So, we might consider that the distance between the one in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
They tell us that it is due to curvature in the Universe.
So, if that is correct, then this curvature sets the maximal size of the Universe.
Therefore, our scientists should tell us what is the maximal size of the Universe.
At some point of time they have estimated that in order to keep A next to B, the maximal the size of the Universe should be 92BLY (Radius of 46 BLY).
Surprisingly, now they do understand that the Universe must be much bigger than that.
This sets a sever contradiction to the BBT.
If the Universe is 1Trillion LY, 256BLY or even infinite, the idea that A is located next to B is incorrect.
So, our scientists bypass this issue.
Therefore please answer the following:
1. Do you confirm that 13.4BY ago Galaxy A was next to galaxy B.
2. So what is the maximal Universe size that could support this imagination? As our scientists claim that the size of the Universe could be much bigger than those 96BLY, please explain how can you set A Next to B while the Universe size is 256BLY or even 1 Trillion LY.
3. What is the real meaning of curvature in the Universe space?
You have stated that the Curvature in space is similar to a curvature in the planet surface. However, in the planet we can specify the radius as the curvature of a 3rd dimension for the 2D surface.
So, please specify the size of the 4th dimension of the Universe space in order to set that kind of curvature.
4. As the Curvature set a finite Universe, what there is outside that Universe space? As you claim that the expansion is in the space itself, than 13.8 years ago there was no space in the whole Universe. So please how could it be that 13.8 BY ago there was a Universe without any space?
5. Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?
The Redshift can't give any idea about the amplitude of the CMBR energy. Therefore, it was a sever mistake to multiply the current CMBR level by the redshift in order to estimate the CMBR altitude in the past..

But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.

Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.
We had long discussion on that.
You and all the BBT scientists reject the simple understanding that the CMBR and its BBR is the radiation from our current real Universe.
With regards to the BBT imagination - 13.4 By ago there was a radiation that carry BBR. That radiation took place at the recombination Era which took with duration of only 60M years.
However, based on your imagination that radiation should stay with us forever and ever.
So, how could it be that it could stay in the Universe for so long time?
Based on your explanation it is there as the universe expands at the speed of light.
However, we already know that this is incorrect as the Universe should be much bigger than the maximal speed of light expansion.
6. So, do you confirm that as the Universe is bigger than this 92BLY the BBT can't give real answer for the BBR?
7. Math calculation for the BBT

Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.

Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Sorry.
We have already discussed this issue.
It is stated: "Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law."
So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.
You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.
Total energy:
E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy
However, as you don't know the size of the Universe, you also don't know the total requested energy.
Therefore this theory can't be used as a math's prove for the BBT.
8. Electromagnetic transformation

Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
there were no transformation tools

None is needed.

So how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?

9. Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?

[Bored chemist]

Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.

The grown-ups and I are talking about exactly the same meaning that this is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

What are you pretending that it means?

Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.

Since we can only know about the bits that we can see, any so called "theory" which says it knows about the stuff we can't, even in principle, ever hope to see is not falsifiable and is not science.

However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.

The scale is wrong.
The hot and cold patches are far too big.

Do you understand that black body radiation has a well defined, unique spectrum for a given temperature?

It is impossible for some random bunch of galaxies or stars or whatever to produce a spectrum which is as exacta match to BBR as the CMBR is.
Do you understand that?

However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.

You would need to show where scientists say that.

Size of the Universe -
Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.
As the BBT can't specify the real size if the Universe, then this theory is Nonsense.
If you can't tell us what the size of the Universe is - we can't verify if the BBT is correct or incorrect.
Therefore, this BBT theory is useless and we just wasting our time on irrelevant theory.

In any case, let me prove why the BBT is not relevant also based on the following aspects:

CMBR

If the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.
It would not be the same in all directions.

Our scientists have already confirmed that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous in long scale.
Therefore, we actually get almost the same CMBR radiation from all directions.
However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.

Distance - Based on the BBT if we look all the way to the left, we might see a galaxy (let's call it Galaxy A) at a maximal distance of about 13.4 BLY. The same issue when we look at the left and we see a galaxy B. So, we might consider that the distance between the one in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
They tell us that it is due to curvature in the Universe.
So, if that is correct, then this curvature sets the maximal size of the Universe.
Therefore, our scientists should tell us what is the maximal size of the Universe.
At some point of time they have estimated that in order to keep A next to B, the maximal the size of the Universe should be 92BLY (Radius of 46 BLY).
Surprisingly, now they do understand that the Universe must be much bigger than that.
This sets a sever contradiction to the BBT.
If the Universe is 1Trillion LY, 256BLY or even infinite, the idea that A is located next to B is incorrect.
So, our scientists bypass this issue.
Therefore please answer the following:
1. Do you confirm that 13.4BY ago Galaxy A was next to galaxy B.
2. So what is the maximal Universe size that could support this imagination? As our scientists claim that the size of the Universe could be much bigger than those 96BLY, please explain how can you set A Next to B while the Universe size is 256BLY or even 1 Trillion LY.
3. What is the real meaning of curvature in the Universe space?
You have stated that the Curvature in space is similar to a curvature in the planet surface. However, in the planet we can specify the radius as the curvature of a 3rd dimension for the 2D surface.
So, please specify the size of the 4th dimension of the Universe space in order to set that kind of curvature.
4. As the Curvature set a finite Universe, what there is outside that Universe space? As you claim that the expansion is in the space itself, than 13.8 years ago there was no space in the whole Universe. So please how could it be that 13.8 BY ago there was a Universe without any space?
5. Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?
The Redshift can't give any idea about the amplitude of the CMBR energy. Therefore, it was a sever mistake to multiply the current CMBR level by the redshift in order to estimate the CMBR altitude in the past..

But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.

Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.
We had long discussion on that.
You and all the BBT scientists reject the simple understanding that the CMBR and its BBR is the radiation from our current real Universe.
With regards to the BBT imagination - 13.4 By ago there was a radiation that carry BBR. That radiation took place at the recombination Era which took with duration of only 60M years.
However, based on your imagination that radiation should stay with us forever and ever.
So, how could it be that it could stay in the Universe for so long time?
Based on your explanation it is there as the universe expands at the speed of light.
However, we already know that this is incorrect as the Universe should be much bigger than the maximal speed of light expansion.
6. So, do you confirm that as the Universe is bigger than this 92BLY the BBT can't give real answer for the BBR?
7. Math calculation for the BBT

Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.

Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Sorry.
We have already discussed this issue.
It is stated: "Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law."
So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.
You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.
Total energy:
E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy
However, as you don't know the size of the Universe, you also don't know the total requested energy.
Therefore this theory can't be used as a math's prove for the BBT.
8. Electromagnetic transformation

Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
there were no transformation tools

None is needed.

So how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?

9. Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?

How long is a piece of string?

Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?

No, as we have said before it's also about the expansion of space.
That's how you can get red shifts corresponding to velocities greater than C.

Try to pay attention when we tell you things.

You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.
Total energy:

No, I don't but... what you are asking me to do is prove that the universe is here.
Well, have a look around you.
It is achievable- because it was achieved.

It does not break the laws of physics.
Your idea does.

So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.

That phrase has no meaning.
Would you like to try again?

So how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?

Quantum variations in the EM field.

Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?

Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.

The interesting question is why don't you believe facts?

[Halc]

Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?

Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.

Reference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc.  The latter is not in units of velocity at all.

[Bored chemist]

Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?

Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.

Reference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc.  The latter is not in units of velocity at all.

He's talking about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch