Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Black Body Cmb Radiation – Indication For Infinite Universe As Stated By Einstein


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 24 May 2017 - 02:25 PM

CMB-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

The Cosmic Microwave Background of our Universe is as follow:

"The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

In astronomy, objects such as stars are frequently regarded as black bodies, though this is often a poor approximation. An almost perfect black-body spectrum is exhibited by the cosmic microwave background radiation

 

Based on the current BBT theory:

http://planck.cf.ac.uk/science/cmb

"The Cosmic Microwave Background (or "CMB" for short) is radiation from around 400,000 years after the start of the Universe.

Ever since the Big Bang, the Universe has been cooling and expanding. By around 400,000 years through its life it was cool enough (though still around 3000 Celsius).

The expansion of the Universe has stretched out the CMB radiation by around 1000 times, which makes it look much cooler. So instead of seeing the afterglow at 3000 degrees, we see it at just 3o above absolute zero, or 3 Kelvin (-270o C).

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0207286

"The recent measurements of the power spectrum of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies are consistent with the simplest inflationary scenario and big bang nucleosynthesis constraints. However, these results rely on the assumption of a class of models based on primordial adiabatic perturbations, cold dark matter and a cosmological constant."

 

Hence, the cosmological constant is a key component for that assumption.

However, Einstein had stated clearly that the Cosmological constant is a severe mistake. Therefore, without the cosmological constant, this whole theory is useless.

 

Actually, we don't even need Einstein statement to understand it.

The CMB is a reflection of our current Universe. It isn't a reflection of the universe as it was at age of only 400,000 year (According the BBT). That assumption is a simple fantasy.

We must explain how could it be that our CURRENT universe has almost a perfect black body radiation.

Based on the BBT, it is not feasible to get a Black body radiation from the current shape of the universe – it is just impossible. Therefore our scientists are going to the early years of the Universe in order to get some support from the history to this unrealistic theory. 

 

We don't have to go back.

Einstein had already given the answer.

He said that our universe is infinite in its age and in its size.

We can easily prove that any infinite object must have a black body radiation.

So, the black body radiation of the CMB is a clear indication that the Universe is Infinite!!!

Therefore, Einstein was fully correct with his static Universe cosmology model, while the BBT isn't relevant any more.


Edited by davdan, 24 May 2017 - 10:34 PM.


#2 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 12:32 AM



Actually, we don't even need Einstein statement to understand it.

The CMB is a reflection of our current Universe. It isn't a reflection of the universe as it was at age of only 400,000 year (According the BBT). That assumption is a simple fantasy.

We must explain how could it be that our CURRENT universe has almost a perfect black body radiation.

Based on the BBT, it is not feasible to get a Black body radiation from the current shape of the universe – it is just impossible. Therefore our scientists are going to the early years of the Universe in order to get some support from the history to this unrealistic theory. 

We don't need Einstein to understand it because Einstein was not an infallible person; evidence suggests that he was wrong.  However, your claims here appear to be nonsense.  Black body radiation has nothing to do with the age of the universe.  You claim that it is not feasible to get a black-body radiation from the current shape of the universe.  Support your idiotic claim.  You can not make an idiotic claim without support and expect others to accept your claim as valid.


Edited by JMJones0424, 25 May 2017 - 12:32 AM.


#3 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2761 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:49 AM

CMB-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

The Cosmic Microwave Background of our Universe is as follow:

"The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K."

 

 

We must explain how could it be that our CURRENT universe has almost a perfect black body radiation.

Based on the BBT, it is not feasible to get a Black body radiation from the current shape of the universe – it is just impossible. Therefore our scientists are going to the early years of the Universe in order to get some support from the history to this unrealistic theory. 

 

 

If it is "not feasible", why is it that this Wiki article regards it as perfectly consistent with the big bang hypothesis? :-  https://en.wikipedia...wave_background

 

I quote the most relevant passage: 

 

"The color temperature of the ensemble of decoupled photons has continued to diminish ever since; now down to 2.7260±0.0013 K,[4] it will continue to drop as the universe expands. The intensity of the radiation also corresponds to black-body radiation at 2.726 K because red-shifted black-body radiation is just like black-body radiation at a lower temperature. According to the Big Bang model, the radiation from the sky we measure today comes from a spherical surface called the surface of last scattering. This represents the set of locations in space at which the decoupling event is estimated to have occurred[14] and at a point in time such that the photons from that distance have just reached observers"


Edited by exchemist, 25 May 2017 - 02:51 AM.


#4 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 08:19 AM

 However, your claims here appear to be nonsense.  Black body radiation has nothing to do with the age of the universe.  

 

The black body radiation is a direct product of Infinite Universe size (not age).

Einstein had stated clearly that the Universe is infinite in its age and size.

 

 You claim that it is not feasible to get a black-body radiation from the current shape of the universe.  Support your idiotic claim.  You can not make an idiotic claim without support and expect others to accept your claim as valid.

 

Lets start by the following:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/...stro-ph/0207286

"The recent measurements of the power spectrum of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies are consistent with the simplest inflationary scenario and big bang nucleosynthesis constraints. However, these results rely on the assumption of a class of models based on primordial adiabatic perturbations, cold dark matter and a cosmological constant."

 

Do you agree that the  cosmological constant:

1. Is Needed in order to confirm the universe as a black body under the BBT?

2. Has a significant impact on the BBT theory?

3. Without it, we can't confirm the acceleration expansion of the Universe?

 

Therefore - do you agree that without the cosmological constant the BBT is just useless?

Hence - lets first focus on the constant:

So, you claim that we don't need Einstein: 

 

 

We don't need Einstein to understand it because Einstein was not an infallible person; evidence suggests that he was wrong. 

 

In one hand I fully agree with you. No one is infallible person. Not even Einstein.

He made a severe mistake by adding that constant to his equation.

He did it in order to support a section of his theory.

But he was brave enough to admit that it was a severe mistake.

Therefore it is forbidden to use Einstein equation with that constant. – So simple and clear.

 

Hence, the modern science is not just making a severe mistake by using that constant, they are making a severe violation of Einstein equation!!!

 

However, the modern science is using "Einstein Name" in order to show that their mathematics is very seriously and important.

But that mathematics has a severe violation of Einstein will. If he was living today he could sue you for this severe violation of his equation.

 

So, you have two options:

1. Eliminate the cosmology constant as stated by Einstein and try to find a mathematical solution for the BBT theory. – If you can, than the BBT theory is valid.

2. Eliminate Einstein name from this equation. In this case you can add any constant or parameter as you like. But you shouldn't tell us that you have the backup of Einstein, (and your mathematics is just useless).

 

So to make it clear -

The modern science is making a severe violation in Einstein Equation in order to find mathematical solution for their unrealistic BBT theory.

 

P.S. 

Why is it needed to use the word - idiotic?

If we don't agree it doesn't mean that one of us must be idiotic.

Please stop it.

 

 


Edited by davdan, 25 May 2017 - 08:26 AM.


#5 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2761 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 08:53 AM

But you do seem to be an idiot, that's the trouble. And I can support that view with evidence, as follows:-

Nobody but an idiot would claim that Einstein could sue someone for using a modified version of one of his equations. What the hell do you think people do in science every day? Eh? They take the results of their predecessors and modify them to fit later observations. That is one of the ways we progress.

As for your reading of the paper, your conclusion seems absurd. This paper shows that the observed CMBR spectrum is consistent with a cosmological model involving a cosmological constant. So, Durrh, that means that models involving such a constant fit the data, so they are good models, for the time being. Savvy?

Edited by exchemist, 25 May 2017 - 08:54 AM.


#6 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 09:31 AM

What the hell do you think people do in science every day? Eh? They take the results of their predecessors and modify them to fit later observations. That is one of the ways we progress.

 

No and Yes.

 

No - 

If we use Einstein equation - we have to use it based on Einstein will.

Einstein had stated clearly that the cosmological constant was his biggest mistake.

We have to accept his will.

Therefore, if we use Einstein equation we must eliminate the cosmology constant from the equation.

 

Yes -

We can modify the equation as we like, but after the modification we can't call it Einstein equation any more.

Especially, if we add the equation a constant which Einstein had already stated that it was his biggest mistake.

 

 

Hence, I still see it as a severe violation of Einstein equation/will.

If we insist to add that forbidden constant to the equation - then please don't call it Einstein equation any more.


Edited by davdan, 25 May 2017 - 09:35 AM.


#7 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2761 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 09:42 AM

No and Yes.[/size]
 
 [/size]
No -[/size]
 
 [/size]
If we use Einstein equation - we have to use it based on Einstein will.[/size]
 
Einstein had stated clearly that the cosmological constant was his biggest mistake.[/size]
 
We have to accept his will.
Therefore, if we use Einstein equation we must eliminate the cosmology constant from the equation.[/size]
 
 [/size]
Yes -[/size]
 
We can modify the equation as we like, but after the modification we can't call it Einstein equation any more.[/size]
 
Especially, if we add the equation a constant which Einstein had already stated that it was his biggest mistake.[/size]
 
 [/size]
Hence, I still see it as a severe violation of Einstein equation/will.[/size]
 
If we insist to add that forbidden constant to the equation - then please don't call it Einstein equation any more.[/size]


This is ludicrous rubbish. We are under no restrictions at all as to how to use the ideas of a scientist, living or dead.

This is especially true when, as been pointed out to you several times, there are new observations now that were not available when the scientist in question was alive.

The concept of Einstein's "will" is neither here nor there, but for what it is worth he would be the first to embrace with enthusiasm the further advances since his time.

Your whole line of argument is idiotic. You are asking science to throw out the best cosmological model we currently have, because of a remark made by someone who died over half a century ago, in ignorance of the data that we now have.

Edited by exchemist, 25 May 2017 - 09:43 AM.


#8 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 09:56 AM

You are asking science to throw out the best cosmological model we currently have, because of a remark made by someone who died over half a century ago, in ignorance of the data that we now have.

 

It isn't "someone".

It is Einstein!

 

Long time ago he had stated that the Universe is Infinite in its size.

 

Just few years ago, I do recall that based on the BBT it was absolutely unaccepted idea.

At the first stage of the BBT it was assumed that the size of the Universe is almost as we see it. (Observable Universe).

Later on, the science came with idea that the diameter of our universe is up to 90 BLY.

Now it seems that the science community takes it as an option that the universe could be infinite.

 

So, can you please tell me what is the real size of the Universe? 


Edited by davdan, 25 May 2017 - 09:57 AM.


#9 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:29 PM

It is clear that the science has no clue about the real size and the shape of our universe.

But they still call themselves – scientists.

It is similar to a doctor which has no clue how his patient looks like.

He doesn't know if it is a baby or an old man, an elephant or a mouse.

But he considers himself as the only one who knows better than all the other idiots how to take care on this unknown patient. 

 

The BBT is the only issue which is absolutely important to our scientists. 

They look at the Universe through the BBT eyes.

They don't stop for even one moment and ask themselves if there is a possibility for an error in the BBT.

In the contrary, any discovery should meet the BBT theory.

Let's look again at the cosmology constant.

Till 1998, the science have used the basic Einstein equation (without that constant) to prove the BBT theory. Therefore it is quite logical to consider the BBT as the preferable theory.

However, the discovery of the acceleration expansion set the BBT in a severe difficulty, as the basic Einstein equation couldn't fit the new unexpected discovery to the BBT.

Hence, the scientists had two options:

1. To understand that there is a severe error in the BBT and look for better theory.

2. To fit the new discovery to the BBT by changing the equations.

  

It was quite clear that as a real scientist, no one will even dare to consider an error in the BBT.

Therefore, it was much more convenient for them to change the equations and claim that they adjust the equation to the observation.

 

Bravo!!!

 

Therefore, the ultimate mission to our scientists is to fit any observation to the BBT and insult anyone which criticizes the holy BBT. 

It seems to me that if you believe in the BBT - than you can considered yourself as a real scientists.

If you don't - then you are considered as an idiot by the "real scientists".

 

Why?

Why the BBT is so important to our scientists?

Why do we have to believe in the BBT?

Why our scientists can't open their eyes to see above the BBT?



#10 mrg

mrg

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:38 PM

DVDN ... I hope you live a long, happy, healthy, prosperous life.   I honestly do. 

 

That's because I know you will be talking exactly the same silly trash to the last day of it. And the next day, the world will be the same as if you had never existed -- well OK, maybe a bit quieter. 

 

For those of us who take the long view -- now THAT'S funny.


Edited by mrg, 25 May 2017 - 02:51 PM.


#11 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1060 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 03:27 PM

 

It is clear that the science has no clue about the real size and the shape of our universe.

But they still call themselves – scientists.

 

It is similar to a doctor which has no clue how his patient looks like.

 

He doesn't know if it is a baby or an old man, an elephant or a mouse.

 

But he considers himself as the only one who knows better than all the other idiots how to take care on this unknown patient. 

 

The BBT is the only issue which is absolutely important to our scientists. 

They look at the Universe through the BBT eyes.

 

They don't stop for even one moment and ask themselves if there is a possibility for an error in the BBT.

 

In the contrary, any discovery should meet the BBT theory.

 

Let's look again at the cosmology constant.

 

Till 1998, the science have used the basic Einstein equation (without that constant) to prove the BBT theory. Therefore it is quite logical to consider the BBT as the preferable theory.

 

However, the discovery of the acceleration expansion set the BBT in a severe difficulty, as the basic Einstein equation couldn't fit the new unexpected discovery to the BBT.

 

Hence, the scientists had two options:

 

1. To understand that there is a severe error in the BBT and look for better theory.

 

2. To fit the new discovery to the BBT by changing the equations.

 

  

It was quite clear that as a real scientist, no one will even dare to consider an error in the BBT.

 

Therefore, it was much more convenient for them to change the equations and claim that they adjust the equation to the observation.

 

 

Bravo!!!

 

Therefore, the ultimate mission to our scientists is to fit any observation to the BBT and insult anyone which criticizes the holy BBT. 

It seems to me that if you believe in the BBT - than you can considered yourself as a real scientists.

 

If you don't - then you are considered as an idiot by the "real scientists".

 

 

Why?

 

Why the BBT is so important to our scientists?

 

Why do we have to believe in the BBT?

 

Why our scientists can't open their eyes to see above the BBT?

 

 

 

It’s clear you don’t know enough about this subject to be a credible critic.

 

I suggest you start by studying the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) solution to Einstein’s field equations. Once you have mastered that, by all means get back to us with your critique.


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#12 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 09:40 PM

It’s clear you don’t know enough about this subject to be a credible critic.

 

I suggest you start by studying the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) solution to Einstein’s field equations. Once you have mastered that, by all means get back to us with your critique.

 

 

O.K.

 

Let's start by the study the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRWmetric. 

It is stated: 

"The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space."

"It also assumes that the spatial component of the metric can be time-dependent."

 

How do we know by 100% that the space is homogeneity and isotropy?

How do we know by 100% that he spatial component of the metric can be time-dependent?

 

You don't need to be scientist in order to understand that if there is an error in your assumption than you might get error in your conclusion.

 

Just as an example. 

Let's assume that all the people on Earth are living homogeneity and isotropy on the surface of Earth.

After very "deep calculation", we can proof that the number of people per square mile in Manhattan is identical to the one in Antarctica,

 

Bravo...

 

Once upon a time people have believed that the Earth is flat.

The assumption was that if I can see you standing next to me than the Earth must be flat.

At that time, if someone thought differently - he could easily beheaded. 

Later on the assumption was that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

If someone thought differently – He found himself in a jail. 

So, I can give you a list of unrealistic assumptions from our history.

 

You are so kind to me.

You may call me an idiot, but at least you don't put me in a jail. 

 

As the modern science is based on those assumptions; then - "Huston, we have a problem".

 

You need to stop those kinds of assumptions.

You need to open your mind and see the reality.

 

Albert Einstein has stated that the universe is infinite.

Only now, our scientists start to understand that our real universe could be infinite.

 

There is a severe gap between the BBT and Infinite universe.

Actually, based on this issue by itself, it is expected to eliminate the whole BBT theory.

 

However, our scientists will not give up.

They will work on new patch (as usual) to the BBT and they will find a way how can we set an infinite universe in only 13.8 Billion years.

 

I really can't believe that we still call it science.

 

In any case, Albert Einstein has also stated that there is no expansion in space.

But the modern science insists to prove the unrealistic BBT based on unrealistic assumptions and based on adding that forbidden cosmology constant to Einstein equation. 

Therefore, we are still living today at the dark age of the modern science.

Just when you will be ready to go out from the BBT black box, you would be able to see why Albert Einstein was absolutely correct with his cosmology model.


Edited by davdan, 25 May 2017 - 10:12 PM.


#13 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2761 posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 12:29 AM

It isn't "someone".[/size]
It is Einstein![/size]
 [/size]
Long time ago he had stated that the Universe is Infinite in its size.[/size]
 
Just few years ago, I do recall that based on the BBT it was absolutely unaccepted idea.[/size]
At the first stage of the BBT it was assumed that the size of the Universe is almost as we see it. (Observable Universe).[/size]
Later on, the science came with idea that the diameter of our universe is up to 90 BLY.[/size]
Now it seems that the science community takes it as an option that the universe could be infinite.[/size]
 [/size]
So, can you please tell me what is the real size of the Universe? [/size]


Science respects Einstein, but does not see him as God and does not view his writings, or indeed those of any other scientist, as holy scripture.

Your entire argument starts from the premise that whatever Einstein said must be right, merely because he was Einstein.
This is not science. IT IS EXTREMELY STUPID.

I repeat: the CMBR observations are fully consistent with current big bang models. If you want to propose an alternative model, it needs to be one that (a) accounts equally well for what we observe and ( b)successfully accounts for observations that current models do not.

If you want to argue for some new model on that basis you will get a reasonable hearing. But if you persist in taking the words of Einstein as axiomatic, in defiance of the observational evidence, then you will be treated, quite rightly, as an idiot.

Edited by exchemist, 26 May 2017 - 12:30 AM.


#14 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 03:30 AM

If you want to argue for some new model on that basis you will get a reasonable hearing. 

 

O.K.

Let's focus on the Black body radiation

Black Body

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Black_body

 

"An ideal body is now defined, called a blackbody. A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.[10]" 

In the article it is also stated that: 

"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"

 

1. if we take an isolated enclosure box and set one LED (or any kind of requested source for Light/Heater) inside this box, we should get a box with internal black body thermal radiation. - (Lets call it A - box)

 

2. Let's take several A boxes next to each other and eliminate the walls between them. If we do so, we should get a bar with an internal black body radiation.

 

3. If we add to this bar an infinite no of A boxes, and eliminate the walls between the boxes, Than we should get an infinite bar (with infinite sources of light/heater) which has an internal black body radiation.

 

4. If we open the wall of the last end box (which is located at the infinity), it shouldn't have any negative impact on the internal black body radiation in that bar (assuming that we measure the radiation far enough from the last open walls). So, we have got an infinite bar (with infinite sources of light/heater) with open ended walls which has an internal black body radiation. Let's call it B- bar.

 

5. If we now set an infinite number of B- bar, one above the other. We should get an infinite rectangle which its width is as an A- box. This infinite rectangle has an open ended (Left & right). However, if we also open the end at the top & down infinity, we should also get a black body radiation if we measure it close to the center. So, we have a black body radiation inside an infinite rectangle with open ended (Up, Down, Left & right ended). Let's call it C-rectangle 

 

6. If we set an infinite number of C- rectangle, one after the other. We should get an infinite cube (It goes to the infinity in all directions.)

 

This cube has an open ended at Up, Down, Left & right sides and it has an inside black body radiation. However, in the same token, if we eliminate all the walls from all directions we should still get a black body radiation (if we measure it somewhere at the center or far enough from the open edges).

 

 

Conclusions:

 

If we add an infinite numbers of isolated enclosure boxes (with inside black body radiation) in all directions and get an infinite cube, the internal radiation in the cube should be a black body even if we eliminates all the walls from those enclosures and at all directions.

Therefore, an infinite object with infinite internal heater should have a black body radiation.

 

Now let's look at our Universe. 

Let's assume that we can set some sort of virtual isolated enclosure around each star in the Universe.

It is clear that in each enclosure there will be a black body radiation.

Those enclosures should touch with each other.

If the universe is infinite, than there will be infinite enclosures - (with a black body radiation in each one) and in all directions.

Based on our explanation, by eliminate the walls of all the infinite enclosures; we still should get a total black body radiation.

Therefore - in an infinite universe it is expected to get a black body radiation.

 

Hence, the black body radiation is a solid proof that Einstein was fully correct when he stated that our universe is infinite.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by davdan, 26 May 2017 - 11:48 AM.


#15 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2761 posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 03:15 PM

O.K.
Let's focus on the Black body radiation
Black Body
 
https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Black_body
 
"An ideal body is now defined, called a blackbody. A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.%5B10%5D" 
In the article it is also stated that: 
"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
 
1. if we take an isolated enclosure box and set one LED (or any kind of requested source for Light/Heater) inside this box, we should get a box with internal black body thermal radiation. - (Lets call it A - box)
 
2. Let's take several A boxes next to each other and eliminate the walls between them. If we do so, we should get a bar with an internal black body radiation.
 
3. If we add to this bar an infinite no of A boxes, and eliminate the walls between the boxes, Than we should get an infinite bar (with infinite sources of light/heater) which has an internal black body radiation.
 
4. If we open the wall of the last end box (which is located at the infinity), it shouldn't have any negative impact on the internal black body radiation in that bar (assuming that we measure the radiation far enough from the last open walls). So, we have got an infinite bar (with infinite sources of light/heater) with open ended walls which has an internal black body radiation. Let's call it B- bar.
 
5. If we now set an infinite number of B- bar, one above the other. We should get an infinite rectangle which its width is as an A- box. This infinite rectangle has an open ended (Left & right). However, if we also open the end at the top & down infinity, we should also get a black body radiation if we measure it close to the center. So, we have a black body radiation inside an infinite rectangle with open ended (Up, Down, Left & right ended). Let's call it C-rectangle 
 
6. If we set an infinite number of C- rectangle, one after the other. We should get an infinite cube (It goes to the infinity in all directions.)
 
This cube has an open ended at Up, Down, Left & right sides and it has an inside black body radiation. However, in the same token, if we eliminate all the walls from all directions we should still get a black body radiation (if we measure it somewhere at the center or far enough from the open edges).
 
 
Conclusions:
 
If we add an infinite numbers of isolated enclosure boxes (with inside black body radiation) in all directions and get an infinite cube, the internal radiation in the cube should be a black body even if we eliminates all the walls from those enclosures and at all directions.
Therefore, an infinite object with infinite internal heater should have a black body radiation.
 
Now let's look at our Universe. 
Let's assume that we can set some sort of virtual isolated enclosure around each star in the Universe.
It is clear that in each enclosure there will be a black body radiation.
Those enclosures should touch with each other.
If the universe is infinite, than there will be infinite enclosures - (with a black body radiation in each one) and in all directions.
Based on our explanation, by eliminate the walls of all the infinite enclosures; we still should get a total black body radiation.
Therefore - in an infinite universe it is expected to get a black body radiation.
 
Hence, the black body radiation is a solid proof that Einstein was fully correct when he stated that our universe is infinite.
 
 
 
 
 
 [/size]

But this is NOT what I was saying would deserve a fair hearing, namely an alternative model that accounts or everything the current Big bang models do, and also accounts for things that the big bang theories cannot account for.

What model are you proposing and why is it superior?

Edited by exchemist, 26 May 2017 - 03:16 PM.

  • JMJones0424 likes this

#16 mrg

mrg

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 03:41 PM

What model are you proposing and why is it superior?

 

And who, precisely, is supposed to care?


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#17 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 10:11 PM

What model are you proposing and why is it superior?

 

 

I'm proposing the comprehensive Einstein cosmology model. 

It gives full explanation about our Universe.

As Einstein have stated, our universe is Infinite in its age and in its size.

There is no expansion in space and no acceleration expansion – Those ideas are just unrealistic.

There is no need for Dark mass, Dark energy and any sort of divine power to explain our universe.

 

 

But this is NOT what I was saying would deserve a fair hearing, namely an alternative model that accounts or everything the current Big bang models do, and also accounts for things that the big bang theories cannot account for.

 

Yes, the CMB is just one pillar of the comprehensive Einstein cosmology model.

However, we have to understand the real meaning of the CMB before moving ahead.

 

So just to summarize this section:

1. The CMB is a reflection of our CURRENT universe.

2. The Black body radiation indicates that the universe in infinite.

3. The amplitude of the CMB gives an indication for the density mass in the Universe.

 

If this is clear we will move ahead.


Edited by davdan, 26 May 2017 - 11:33 PM.