0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/02/2023 08:05:42Let'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.
Let's make it clear.Only based on the BBT theory an infinite universe wouldn't be stable.
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.
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?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:01:44Hence, we fully agree that the 1100 is a direct out come from the BBTNo.I keep saying this and I don't think you understand that it is improtant.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:15:22Can we agree that only the following message is correct:Can we agree that only the following message is correct:CMBR BBT redshift is 1100Sure.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:15:22Can we agree that only the following message is correct:
However, the recombination temperature is not realistic.
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.
Based on tidal heat transformation new energy can be created in our Universe.so how it really works:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/02/2023 10:31:43However, the recombination temperature is not realistic.The recombination temperature is a measured property of hydrogen.Are you claiming the universe got it wrong?
Therefore, if the universe is infinite then you have to agree that the problem is not with the infinite universe but with the BBT.
However, this recombination temperature can't work after the bang.
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 EMTherefore, 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?
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 SMBHThat 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 yearshttps://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933864The 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.
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/02/2023 10:31:43Sorry, 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 SMBHThat 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 yearshttps://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933864The 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"?
would you kindly explain the meaning of "these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves"?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/02/2023 04:57:07As 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.
QuoteQuote 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 trillionIt's not that big.It is zero.
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
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.
all I have asked is to agree that the CMBR redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT theory.
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):
It's not that big.It is zero.What could it be reflected in?
So, although we all agree and understand the real meaning of recombination Hydrogen process,
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:45:45all 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:45:45all I have asked is to agree that the CMBR redshift of 1100 is based on the BBT theory.
So, how can you claim that this temp ratio of 1100 represents a redshift while real redshift has a totally different calculation?
At last, now I start to understand your message.
So, there is no linkage between the BBT to 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?
However, redshift isn't a ratio between temperatures.It is a ratio between spectrums / colors.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/02/2023 09:10:09So, 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.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:10:09However, 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_lawThe wavelength of the peak of the BBR tells you the effective temperature.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:10:09However, redshift isn't a ratio between temperatures.It is a ratio between spectrums / colors.
Sorry, we can't just replace wavelength & frequency in the redshift formula by temperature.
Please be aware that the redshift formula is as follow:Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrestWe 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 = 2,281At the minimal level of only 3400 °C (or 3673K) the redshift should be about:Z = (3673 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 1,334
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/02/2023 05:36:48Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrestZ = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281Why did you suddenly shift from using wavelengths to temperatures?Don't you see the problem there?
Z= (λobserved -λrest) / λrestZ = (6275 – 2.75) / 2.75 = 2,281
"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.