[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's make it clear.
Only based on the BBT theory an infinite universe wouldn't be stable.

No.
Based on gravity and the conservation of energy a static universe would be unstable.

Sorry, you have failed to understand how tidal gravity really works.
Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.
so how it really works:
Tidal event between the SMBH to the orbital stars in the galaxy generates internal heat in the SMBH
That heat is the source for the mighty SMBH' EM energy:
In M87 "Along the magnetic field lines, the particles are accelerated so efficiently that they form a jet out to scales of 6000 light years
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933864
The SMBH' EM energy is based on tidal gravity force.
Therefore, SMBHs have severe EM energy due to tidal heat transformation.
So, we actually transform the gravity force to tidal heat and then to EM energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation, the stars around the SMBH must shift outwards.

The reflection is impossible.
If you have a mirror that is infinitely far away, you can't see anything reflected it in.
I thought something that obvious didn't need a particularly careful explanation.

I do not discuss about a reflection from mirror that is infinitely far away, but about a radiation from any object in this infinite Universe.
Sorry if I didn't explain it correctly.

For any element apart from hydrogen the CMBR wold have a band structure.
It doesn't.
So we know that the CMBR was formed by hydrogen.
And once we know what element emitted that radiation, we know what temperature it must have been at (because we know the recombination temperature).
And, since we know what the current temperature is, we can calculate the red shift.
Can you follow that logic?

I have already answered this issue.
We all agree that the CMBR was formed by hydrogen and the hydrogen recombination temperature.
However, this recombination temperature can't work after the bang.
Please be aware that electron has electric charge.
A bang (even a Big Bang) can't create electric charge.
Therefore, if you wish to create electrons (or quarks that carry electric charge), real electric charge must be supplied.
EM is the ultimate source for electric charge.
Therefore, in order to create any electric particle EM energy must be involved.
The BBT doesn't offer any real source of EM
Therefore, that bang can't create any real particle and any hydrogen atoms.
Please also don't forget that any particle in the nature comes with its anti - particle.
The BBT doesn't offer real process of how to split between the pair.
Therefore, based on the BBT, even if a bang could create imagination particle pair, that pair should be annihilated at the same moment of creation.
Therefore, your claim for recombination temperature is not realistic as not even a real single electron could be created by that bang and survive the annihilation process.
Please also be aware that our scientists call it recombination.
What's wrong with combination. So why they add the re to the combination?
Could it be that they know that a Hydrogen combination is not realistic?
Therefore, in order to bypass the unrealistic process of first Hydrogen combination/creation they add the word re as the Hydrogen was already there?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:01:44
Hence, we fully agree that the 1100 is a direct out come from the BBT
No.
I keep saying this and I don't think you understand that it is improtant.

I do understand, but I disagree.
The redshifty of 1100 is based on Hydrogen recombination process, while the idea that process took place at the early universe is based on the BBT.
Therefore, the redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT.
The following message from origin is correct:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:15:22
Can we agree that only the following message is correct:

Can we agree that only the following message is correct:
CMBR BBT redshift is 1100
Sure.

[Bored chemist]

However, the recombination temperature is not realistic.

The recombination temperature is a measured property of hydrogen.
Are you claiming the universe got it wrong?

[Bored chemist]

I do not discuss about a reflection from mirror that is infinitely far away, but about a radiation from any object in this infinite Universe.
Sorry if I didn't explain it correctly.

If you don't understand what the word "reflection" means, maybe you shouldn't use it.

Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.
so how it really works:

You lost the argument about perpetual motion in a previous thread.
You were told not to reintroduce it.
Are you seeking a ban?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, the recombination temperature is not realistic.

The recombination temperature is a measured property of hydrogen.
Are you claiming the universe got it wrong?

The recombination temperature is a measured property of hydrogen and it is 100% correct.
I claim that the idea that it took place 380,000 years after the Big Bang is based on the BBT.
Therefore, the redshift that is based on that idea is also based on the BBT.
Anyhow, if you still don't agree with that - then let's agree that we don't agree.
I don't have any further open questions and I do appreciate your support so far.

[Origin]

Therefore, if the universe is infinite then you have to agree that the problem is not with the infinite universe but with the BBT.

I don't even agree there is a problem.

Your habit of telling people what they think is extremely annoying.  I would recommend that you stop doing it, unless being annoying is one of the goals.

[Origin]

However, this recombination temperature can't work after the bang.

What do you mean by that?

A bang (even a Big Bang) can't create electric charge.

Do you think electrical charge existed before the big bang?

Therefore, if you wish to create electrons (or quarks that carry electric charge), real electric charge must be supplied.
EM is the ultimate source for electric charge.
Therefore, in order to create any electric particle EM energy must be involved.
The BBT doesn't offer any real source of EM
Therefore, that bang can't create any real particle and any hydrogen atoms.
Please also don't forget that any particle in the nature comes with its anti - particle.
The BBT doesn't offer real process of how to split between the pair.
Therefore, based on the BBT, even if a bang could create imagination particle pair, that pair should be annihilated at the same moment of creation.
Therefore, your claim for recombination temperature is not realistic as not even a real single electron could be created by that bang and survive the annihilation process.

None of this makes very much sense based on the actual BBT.  I think you should read up on the theory.

Please also be aware that our scientists call it recombination.
What's wrong with combination. So why they add the re to the combination?
Could it be that they know that a Hydrogen combination is not realistic?
Therefore, in order to bypass the unrealistic process of first Hydrogen combination/creation they add the word re as the Hydrogen was already there?

You seriously think scientist made something up and to trick us all into believing this lie they put a prefix on a term?  Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

[Kryptid]

Sorry, you have failed to understand how tidal gravity really works.
Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.
so how it really works:
Tidal event between the SMBH to the orbital stars in the galaxy generates internal heat in the SMBH
That heat is the source for the mighty SMBH' EM energy:
In M87 "Along the magnetic field lines, the particles are accelerated so efficiently that they form a jet out to scales of 6000 light years
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933864
The SMBH' EM energy is based on tidal gravity force.
Therefore, SMBHs have severe EM energy due to tidal heat transformation.
So, we actually transform the gravity force to tidal heat and then to EM energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation, the stars around the SMBH must shift outwards.

Like Bored Chemist said, don't go there.

[Bored chemist]

I claim that the idea that it took place 380,000 years after the Big Bang is based on the BBT.

The red shift is not defined by time.
It's defined by the wavelengths involved.
So this

Therefore, the redshift that is based on that idea is also based on the BBT.

is another example of the sh1t that you insist on trying to smear across this website.
Stop doing it.

[Bored chemist]

Please also be aware that our scientists call it recombination.
What's wrong with combination. So why they add the re to the combination?
Could it be that they know that a Hydrogen combination is not realistic?
Therefore, in order to bypass the unrealistic process of first Hydrogen combination/creation they add the word re as the Hydrogen was already there?

Because that's the word for the process an it was in use before the BBT was published.
https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.32.918


But, this is a distraction.
In a way you are correct.
This is "combination".
The protons and electrons are forming hydrogen atoms from the protons and electrons produced from the cooling of the  primordial "whatever the hell it was" created by the BB.
This is the first time that hydrogen atoms were formed and the universe became "transparent" to any EM radiation on a large scale.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Sorry, you have failed to understand how tidal gravity really works.
Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.
so how it really works:
Tidal event between the SMBH to the orbital stars in the galaxy generates internal heat in the SMBH
That heat is the source for the mighty SMBH' EM energy:
In M87 "Along the magnetic field lines, the particles are accelerated so efficiently that they form a jet out to scales of 6000 light years
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933864
The SMBH' EM energy is based on tidal gravity force.
Therefore, SMBHs have severe EM energy due to tidal heat transformation.
So, we actually transform the gravity force to tidal heat and then to EM energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation, the stars around the SMBH must shift outwards.

Like Bored Chemist said, don't go there.

As we shouldn't go there, would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?

https://www.universetoday.com/138456/outflows-black-holes-creating-new-molecules-destruction/

"In the past few years, astronomers have also observed fast molecular outflows emanating from AGNs which left them puzzled. For one, it was a mystery how any particles could survive the heat and energy of a black hole’s outflow. But according to a new study produced by researchers from Northwestern University, these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves. This theory may help explain how stars form in extreme environments".

Would you kindly help our puzzled astronomers to understand how molecules/particles could be born within the winds and  survive the heat and energy of the SMBH?
How can we explain what is the SMBH's heat and energy source of the SMBH?

[Kryptid]

As we shouldn't go there, would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?

I will not, as it is not relevant to the redshift values of the CMBR (which is what this thread is about). I'm not allowing you to use this as a way to shoehorn in your already debunked ideas about black holes.

[Bored chemist]

would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?

I  don't think there's any point.
You never seem to listen to explanations, do you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As we shouldn't go there, would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?

I will not, as it is not relevant to the redshift values of the CMBR (which is what this thread is about). I'm not allowing you to use this as a way to shoehorn in your already debunked ideas about black holes.

Dear Kryptid
This discovery is very relevant to our discussion.
The main issue of our discussion is about the CMBR redshift.
Our scientists claim that this CMBR redshift value is 1100.
However, I hope that we all agree that we don't get this redshift from the CMBR itself, but from the key understanding of the BBT that at some point of time the CMBR value of the entire early universe was based on the recombination process of the Hydrogen.
There is no error in the recombination process. It is very clear. However, the linkage between this recombination process to the temp of the early universe and at a specific age of the Universe is based on the BBT.
Therefore, if there is an error in the BBT, then there must be also an error in the CMBR redshift value.
In this discussion I had no intention to discuss about the BBT. I have just asked to agree that the CMBR redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT theory.
Therefore, we my request was to agree that  the CMBR BBT redshift = 1100.
However, based on the following reply from BC, it seems to me that he think that there is no possibility that there is any error in the BBT (not even one to one million of a trillion):

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/02/2023 04:11:16
. Even if the chance that the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe is just one to one million of a trillion

It's not that big.
It is zero.

Therefore, I had to show that there is a possibility (even if it is a very minor possibility) that there might be an error in the BBT.
I have offered the observation about new born particles and molecules which contradicts the basic idea of the BBT.
If that is not enough, James Webb Space Telescope has just bagged the oldest known galaxies
By Tereza Pultarova published December 09, 2022
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-oldest-galaxies-confirmed

"The astronomers now know that light from the four galaxies took more than 13.4 billion years to reach Webb. More precisely, the telescope sees the galaxies as they looked only 350 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was only 2% of its current age, although the galaxies must have started to form even earlier."

What is the chance that those galaxies could be form in just 350M years after the Big Bang?
Could it be that one day we will discover even older galaxies?
Could it be that our Universe is older than that specific age based on the BBT?
If our universe is older and bigger then the BBT expectation, could it be that it is infinite in its size or even in its age?

"With these measurements, we can know the intrinsic brightness of the galaxies and figure out how many stars they have," Robertson said. "Now we can start to really pick apart how galaxies are put together over time."

Based on the above message it is clear that our scientists don't know "how galaxies are put together over time"

Therefore, if our scientists have an error about "how galaxies are put together over time" then there might be a possibility that the recombination process of Hydrogen didn't work in the early universe (as based on the BBT).
So, although we all agree and understand the real meaning of recombination Hydrogen process, I think that there is a possibility that this process didn't take place in the early universe as it is described by the BBT.
I hope that we all agree that if one day we would discover that the Universe is infinite in its size, then we also should agree that the CMBR radiation represents the radiation of that Infinite universe.
In other words, there is a possibility that the CMBR is a radiation that comes from the infinite galaxies in the infinite universe.
Even if the chance for that is just one to one million of a trillion, we must consider that possibility.
Therefore, I hope that you agree that the current understanding that CMBR redshift is 1100 is ONLY based on the BBT.
Hence can we agree that CMBR BBT redshift = 1100?

[Bored chemist]

However, we all agree that we don't get this redshift from the CMBR itself, but from the key understanding of the BBT that at some point of time the CMBR value of the entire early universe was based on the recombination process of the Hydrogen.

No
I have already explained that repeatedly.
If you don't understand something, ask.

all I have asked is to agree that the CMBR redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT theory.

It isn't.

It is based on the fact that the only thing that could hive rise to the structureless spectrum is hydrogen recombination, but that happens at a very high temperature and gives visible/ UV light so something- expansion or doppler or whatever- has shifted it down to the microwave region where we now see it.

That red shift figure of 1100 is based on two things.
The emission peak in hydrogen recombination and the emission peak in the CMBR.
Divide one by the other and you get 1100.

That's it.
It is not based on the BBT.

So you need to stop saying everyone agrees that it is.

It is, of course, consistent with the BBT.
But it is not a consequence  or cause of it.

However, based on the following reply from BC, it seems to me that he think that there is no possibility that there is any error in the BBT (not even one to one million of a trillion):

I did not say that.
You quoted me out of context.
If you were honest you would report what I actually said.

It's not that big.
It is zero.

What could it be reflected in?

And you would see that what I said was just a statement of the obvious.
You can't reflect the universe because there is nothing to reflect it in.
There simply isn't a big enough mirror, is there.
So your nonsense about " the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe the real CMBR reflects the radiation of the infinite universe " is impossible, isn't it?

It's conceivable that the BBT is wrong.
But it's impossible that your idea isright.

So, although we all agree and understand the real meaning of recombination Hydrogen process,

You have yet to show that you understand it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:45:45
all I have asked is to agree that the CMBR redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT theory.

It isn't.

It is based on the fact that the only thing that could hive rise to the structureless spectrum is hydrogen recombination, but that happens at a very high temperature and gives visible/ UV light so something- expansion or doppler or whatever- has shifted it down to the microwave region where we now see it.

That red shift figure of 1100 is based on two things.
The emission peak in hydrogen recombination and the emission peak in the CMBR.
Divide one by the other and you get 1100.

That's it.
It is not based on the BBT.

So you need to stop saying everyone agrees that it is.

It is, of course, consistent with the BBT.
But it is not a consequence  or cause of it.

Thanks
At last, now I start to understand your message.
So, there is no linkage between the BBT to the CMBR.
It is all about the recombination Hydrogen spectrum that we observe in the CMBR.

So, today we clearly see exactly the recombination Hydrogen spectrum in the CMBR radiation.
We get the CMBR spectrum at a maximal temp amplitude of 2.75 K while based on the recombination process the maximal temp amplitude should be 3000K.
Hence, we divide the 3000K temp by the 2.75K temp and get that 1100 value.
Is it correct?

However, redshift isn't a ratio between temperatures.
It is a ratio between spectrums / colors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
"In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength, and corresponding decrease in the frequency and photon energy, of electromagnetic radiation (such as light). The opposite change, a decrease in wavelength and simultaneous increase in frequency and energy, is known as a negative redshift, or blueshift. The terms derive from the colours red and blue which form the extremes of the visible light spectrum."

There is no Bule and no Red shift in that 1100.
Do you agree that this value of 1100 is just a temp-shift.

So, how can you claim that this tempshift of 1100 represents a redshift while real redshift has a totally different calculation?

[Origin]

So, how can you claim that this temp ratio of 1100 represents a redshift while real redshift has a totally different calculation?

This question has been answered but you ignore the answer, so what is the point in answering it again?
You present nothing but bad faith arguments, you are quite simply acting like an anti-science troll.

[Bored chemist]

At last, now I start to understand your message.

That inspired a tiny bit of hope in me.

So, there is no linkage between the BBT to the CMBR.

And that dashed it.

If you really understood, you would see how  the BBT is consistent with the CMBR and not many other possibilities are.
For example, "continuous creation" is not consistent with the CMBR.

We get the CMBR spectrum at a maximal temp amplitude of 2.75 K while based on the recombination process the maximal temp amplitude should be 3000K.
Hence, we divide the 3000K temp by the 2.75K temp and get that 1100 value.
Is it correct?

It's more complicated than that but very broadly, yes.

However, redshift isn't a ratio between temperatures.
It is a ratio between spectrums / colors.

You seem to have missed the fact that they are interdependent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

The wavelength of the peak of the BBR tells you the effective temperature.



I keep trying to tell you that this would be easier if you started by learning the actual physics.

Why won't you do that?

Is it too difficult for you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, how can you claim that this temp ratio of 1100 represents a redshift while real redshift has a totally different calculation?

This question has been answered but you ignore the answer, so what is the point in answering it again?
You present nothing but bad faith arguments, you are quite simply acting like an anti-science troll.

No.
Unfortunately, so far I didn't get a direct answer to this question.
So, let's try to understand the meaning of redshift/Blueshift:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
"Redshift (and blueshift) may be characterized by the relative difference between the observed and emitted wavelengths (or frequency) of an object. In astronomy, it is customary to refer to this change using a dimensionless quantity called z. If λ represents wavelength and f represents frequency (note, λf = c where c is the speed of light), then z is defined by the equations:[18]
After z is measured, the distinction between redshift and blueshift is simply a matter of whether z is positive or negative. For example, Doppler effect blueshifts (z < 0) are associated with objects approaching (moving closer to) the observer with the light shifting to greater energies. Conversely, Doppler effect redshifts (z > 0) are associated with objects receding (moving away) from the observer with the light shifting to lower energies. Likewise, gravitational blueshifts are associated with light emitted from a source residing within a weaker gravitational field as observed from within a stronger gravitational field, while gravitational redshifting implies the opposite conditions."
Hence, the peak in the amplitude is used to select the correct wavelength & frequency that will be used in the redshift/blueshift formula, but the peak amplitude/temperature isn't part of the calculation.
That is the simple explanation of real redshift/blueshift.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:10:09
However, redshift isn't a ratio between temperatures.
It is a ratio between spectrums / colors.

You seem to have missed the fact that they are interdependent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
The wavelength of the peak of the BBR tells you the effective temperature.

Sorry, we can't just replace wavelength & frequency in the redshift formula by temperature.
Temperature is interdependent to wavelength & frequency as tomato is interdependent with egg.
You might think that they both are interdependent as they have a ball shape.
However, if you would use in your cake a tomato instead of egg, you won't get a real cake.
In the same token, if we use temperature in the redshift formula instead of wavelength & frequency we get some sort of shift, but that shift can't be considered as a real redshift or blueshift
It is just a temp-shift.
Sorry, if our scientists believe that a ratio between tempt is a redshift, then they have to prove it by real math.
In the article that you have offered they discuss about Wien's law:
"Black-body radiation as a function of wavelength for various temperatures. Each temperature curve peaks at a different wavelength and Wien's law describes the shift of that peak."
That explanation is very clear.
However, it doesn't explain why we can replace in the redshift formula the ratio between wavelength / Frequency by ratio between temperatures.

So please, can you prove by real law of physics why our scientists have decided that wavelength / Frequency are interdependent to temperature and can be used in the same redshift/blueshift formula.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, we can't just replace wavelength & frequency in the redshift formula by temperature.

You did.

Please be aware that the redshift formula is as follow:
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
We already know that the λrest is equal to the peak in the CMBR (2.75K).
So why we do not use the peak in the "Atomic hydrogen welding" to set the λobserved?
At the maximal level of 6000 °C (or 6273K) the redshift should be about:

Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281

At the minimal level of only 3400 °C (or 3673K) the redshift should be about:

Z = (3673 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 1,334

Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrest
Z = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281

Why did you suddenly shift from using wavelengths to temperatures?
Don't you see the problem there?

And I pointed out your mistake.
Let me know when you have finished arguing with yourself.

[Origin]

"Black-body radiation as a function of wavelength for various temperatures. Each temperature curve peaks at a different wavelength and Wien's law describes the shift of that peak."
That explanation is very clear.
However, it doesn't explain why we can replace in the redshift formula the ratio between wavelength / Frequency by ratio between temperatures.

Go back and reread this thread the answer to your question is there, no need to repeat it.

Edit:  Actually just reread the source you cited in the OP.