A Critical Examination of Cosmic Expansion and the Present-Day Origin of the CMB

[Classical Motion]

I think that the temperature of space is a dormant temperature. An abstract temperature. The CMBR is a dormant temperature. An inactive temperature.

I bought a “cat pak” of lasers. Red, green and violet. There is no interaction between these lasers when criss-crossed. No mixing. No loss. No change. They pass right thru one another WITHOUT interference.

But if I put a laser or criss-cross the laser on a thermometer bulb…… then there is an interaction. Mass must be present for CMBR to mean anything. To interact.

Static and the CMBR is only a potential for temp. Not temp itself.

CMBR is omni-directional. No net direction. Only an angular receptor can make use of and interact with it.

Personally, I think CMBR is local and present. Possibly some harmonics of gravity. I think gravity comes from dipole vibration. Not a fundamental particle property.

Just supposition, of course.

Duty cycle light. Discreet intermittent wave fronts. Blinks. Duty cycle blinks. With two discreet shifts. An emitter shift and a detector shift. A ratio shift and a rate shift.

 

[Helio]

The only difference is that instead of regarding the CMB as relic radiation, AND Theory holds that it is dark matter which is the relic radiation from the Big Bang.

If DM is the source of the relic radiation, and because all radiation propagates through space, then only the local DM would give us the strange 2.73K result. The more distant sources would show cooler regions.

This assumes we are in an expanding universe, of course. To claim there is no expansion requires refutation of all the lines of evidence that have been found, over and over, to support expansion.

 

[Jzz]

This assumes we are in an expanding universe, of course. To claim there is no expansion requires refutation of all the lines of evidence that have been found, over and over, to support expansion.

The CMB is the cornerstone of cosmological expansion theories

 

[Jzz]

If DM is the source of the relic radiation, and because all radiation propagates through space, then only the local DM would give us the strange 2.73K result. The more distant sources would show cooler regions.

This assumes we are in an expanding universe, of course. To claim there is no expansion requires refutation of all the lines of evidence that have been found, over and over, to support expansion.

Thanks for considering the possibility that the CMB is a present day phenomenon

 

[Helio]

The CMB is the cornerstone of cosmological expansion theories

It's certainly the best evidence for the theory, which began in 1927 and was deemed likely a few years later by many prominent cosmologists including de Sitter and Edington. Einstein soon followed.

But more predictions came forth as scientists began to ponder the expansion theory. The CMBR became the key test.

 

[Helio]

Thanks for considering the possibility that the CMB is a present day phenomenon

Alternatives should always be welcomed, but supported.

 

[Greenlight]

Me: do we observe the CMBR as uniform or as a red shifted gradient based on distance?

AI: We observe the CMBR as highly uniform, rather than as a redshifted gradient based on distance. This is because the CMBR comes from a single, well-defined surface—the surface of last scattering, when the universe became transparent about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

Why Isn’t There a Radial Gradient?​

1. We See the CMBR as a Background The CMBR originates from everywhere in the universe at once, but we don’t observe different distances affecting its redshift. Instead, it appears uniform because we are looking at a snapshot of the early universe.

Is this AI statement accurate?

 

[billslugg]

The AI response is correct, except it does not address the amount of nonuniformity or the dipole non-uniformity.
The CMBR is highly uniform, only 1 ppm unevenness.
The distance is the same everywhere.
The CMBR is slightly blue shifted, by about 500 km/s in the direction the Milky is moving towards Vega, and redshifted behind us.
This is an absolute velocity reference in the Universe, but there is no preferred direction or location.

 

[Greenlight]

AI: Yes, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation can be measured locally. It's a faint microwave radiation that permeates the universe and can be detected everywhere,

also the AI: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is measured from a very great distance, approximately 40 billion light-years away, representing the afterglow of the Big Bang.

i am a bit confused by this.

CBMR measures the same frequency locally as it does 40 billion light years away? Uniform without hubble redshift?

 

[Helio]

Perhaps it helps to picture oneself at a time when all the emissions first took place.

Prior to abut 380k years after the Bang, all light was scattered wildly. It would be impossible to see even your hand in front of you if extended.

The universe had been expanding during this time and had reached a temperature of abut 3000 K. This allowed the free electrons scattered to attach to the free protons, which gave the universe the first atoms. And it happened essentially everywhere in the universe. It's called Recombination since that's the word used by physicists whenever electrons combine with nuclei.

So, if a person, immune to being fried, were there the first light would have come from very close, followed by the next photons just behind those, followed by..... on and on. Today we are seeing the same flow of photons come to us but it's taken 13.8 billion years for that light to reach us. But the photons are also waves and these waves too have expanded, along with spacetime, placing them in the microwave band of the EM spectrum.

The universe is currently about 1100 times larger in volume than at the time of Recombination. Hence the universe is larger than 13.8 billion lyrs in radius.

 

[Jzz]

Perhaps it helps to picture oneself at a time when all the emissions first took place.

Prior to abut 380k years after the Bang, all light was scattered wildly. It would be impossible to see even your hand in front of you if extended.

The universe had been expanding during this time and had reached a temperature of abut 3000 K. This allowed the free electrons scattered to attach to the free protons, which gave the universe the first atoms. And it happened essentially everywhere in the universe. It's called Recombination since that's the word used by physicists whenever electrons combine with nuclei.

So, if a person, immune to being fried, were there the first light would have come from very close, followed by the next photons just behind those, followed by..... on and on. Today we are seeing the same flow of photons come to us but it's taken 13.8 billion years for that light to reach us. But the photons are also waves and these waves too have expanded, along with spacetime, placing them in the microwave band of the EM spectrum.

The universe is currently about 1100 times larger in volume than at the time of Recombination. Hence the universe is larger than 13.8 billion lyrs in radius.

I am going to ignore the above, if you don't mind, and concentrate instead on the proofs behind these assumptions. The existence of dark energy—proposed to explain the apparent acceleration of the Universe's expansion—rests primarily on the unexpected dimness of Type Ia supernovae. In fact it would not be going too far to state that the dimming of type 1a supernovae is the ONLY evidence for an expanding Universe. Granted this evidence might be based on evidence collected from a wide array of Type 1a supernovae events, but it is damning to note that this dimming is not observed uniformly across all distant celestial objects. The Tolman surface brightness test performed using the HST, shows no corresponding dimming in distant galaxies, contradicting what would be expected if cosmic acceleration were real. Furthermore, doubts arise about the reliability of the brightness and redshift measurements themselves; observational data could be skewed by instrumental limitations, atmospheric interference, or misunderstood phenomena such as a heterodyning-like effects, where weak infrared signals used to interpret redshift may mix with background noise, distorting frequency readings and falsely suggesting greater distances and velocities. Infrared observations are inherently more vulnerable to such mixing effects precisely because of their broad wavelength coverage and the way IR detectors and filters work. Unlike narrow optical bands, IR instruments often employ wide-band filters or dispersive elements that collect a large swath of the spectrum at once, leading to systematic overestimates of redshift and underestimates of brightness. If such systematic errors are present, the entire dark energy hypothesis may be based on misread light, calling into question one of the most dominant assumptions in modern cosmology.

 

[Jzz]

Me: do we observe the CMBR as uniform or as a red shifted gradient based on distance?

AI: We observe the CMBR as highly uniform, rather than as a redshifted gradient based on distance. This is because the CMBR comes from a single, well-defined surface—the surface of last scattering, when the universe became transparent about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

Why Isn’t There a Radial Gradient?​

1. We See the CMBR as a Background The CMBR originates from everywhere in the universe at once, but we don’t observe different distances affecting its redshift. Instead, it appears uniform because we are looking at a snapshot of the early universe.

What puzzles me is that we know from observation and experimental data that everything radiates, if we take the estimated volume of the observable universe is about 3.57 x 10^80 cubic meters. This is based on a spherical model of the universe with a diameter of approximately 93 billion light-years (or 8.8 x 10^26 meters). And if 95% of the Universe is made of a density of one atom per cubic metre, what would be the effect of all those atoms (3.23 x 10^80 atoms) radiating as a result of interacting with the remaining 5% of matter in the Universe that is radiating, much as the earth interacts resulting in a radiation temperature of 300 K? The truly telling factor would be if there were a medium that permeated the entire Universe, much as dark matter, does, this would explain the perfect black body radiation of the CMB, without having to regard it as relic radiation from the Big Bang. Mind you I think the exact volume and dimensions of the Universe is open to question, what is fact is the percentages involved.

 

[Helio]

DE evidence is more abundant today…

Dark energy, explained

Coined by University of Chicago astrophysicist Michael Turner in 1998, dark energy—the force causing the universe to expand faster over time—remains one of the great mysteries of physics.

news.uchicago.edu

“Since [SNstudy]then, other studies—including measurements of the large-scale structure of the universe, of X-rays from galaxy clusters, and of the cosmic microwave background—have found the same result.”

Also, the CMBR’s black body degree of perfection cannot be replicated by countless imperfect blackbody radiators.

 

[Jzz]

“Since [SNstudy]then, other studies—including measurements of the large-scale structure of the universe, of X-rays from galaxy clusters, and of the cosmic microwave background—have found the same result.”

Also, the CMBR’s black body degree of perfection cannot be replicated by countless imperfect blackbody radiators.

Helio, would you say that the red shift of type1a supernovae is the single most compelling piece of evidence for expansion and dark energy? If so then I think you are missing the gist of what I am saying.

The infrared frequency range covers a range of 700 x 10^-9 to 1 x 10^-3. This is a huge range corresponding to a spread of :

4.29×10 ^14^-3×10^11≈ 4.29×10^14Hz

This is nearly 7 times the entire visible light range (which spans only about 390 to 750 nm, or ~400 THz to ~790 THz).

Classical motion said: “I bought a “cat pak” of lasers. Red, green and violet. There is no interaction between these lasers when criss-crossed. No mixing. No loss. No change. They pass right thru one another WITHOUT interference.”

Well that is great but suppose instead of those particular colours, classical motion had bought two red lasers differing slightly in frequency. Can you imagine the havoc that would ensue! So what I am saying is, since the results of the Tolman surface brightness test, coming from an unimpeachable source, namely the HST, do not detect any change in brightness in the rest of the applicable parts of the Universe, it is surely possible if not probable that there has been a mix-up in the type1a supernovae readings.

 

[Jzz]

Also, the CMBR’s black body degree of perfection cannot be replicated by countless imperfect blackbody radiators.

I will repeat once more, what do you think happens to the radiation from the 95% of the Universe that has a density of one atom per cubic metre. If we follow classical laws governing the propagation of light, it follows that the entire volume of space is constantly bathed in overlapping radiation fields. Even at a density of 1 atom/m³, there are many opportunities for photons to interact. The total number of absorbing particles across cosmic distances is staggeringly high. In practice, any radiation field in thermal equilibrium with matter will mimic the black body spectrum. Your argument is ‘no medium no thermalization’. So the question of “How can a Universe that is 95% near-empty space still contribute coherently to the thermal character of cosmic radiation?” is answered if a medium such as dark matter were present. Further, what is often ignored is the selectivity that atoms exhibit in the energies with which they interact. Since the majority of these atoms are hydrogen, it follow that any radiation they emit will be in a narrow range of frequencies lending further credence to their thermalisation and black body characteristics.

 

[Helio]

Helio, would you say that the red shift of type1a supernovae is the single most compelling piece of evidence for expansion and dark energy? If so then I think you are missing the gist of what I am saying.

The SN study, by two independent teams, was the evidence of the discovery. The more recent studies of the CMBR data may, or may not, be superior to the SN data. I’m too much the amateur here in this level of argument, though I’ve never looked into the studies.

The Hubble Tension may be worth study as, IMO, it may cause some DE tweaking.

Your skepticism is not unhealthy. Only the behavior of DE seems to be demonstrable; nothing as to what it is. It is, interestingly, similar to Lemaitre’s assumed vacuum energy, but with some differences, apparently.

 

[Classical Motion]

The solar wind, isolated particles are accelerated away from the sun continuously. They do not radiate.

And if any of the particles out in space were to radiate, the emissions would be hard x-ray or higher gamma. Low frequencies can not come from particles. Unless they are aligned, like in/for radio.

Space is bathed in EM, But all the emissions below hard x-ray, are dipole emissions. X-ray, UV, visible, IR…. All are from dipoles. Neutral matter.

The only way to get a space particle to radiate, is to hit it with a gamma. Charge it up, so it can re-emit.

You can turn dark matter into light, by shinning gamma on it. Then you can see it.

But it would take a lot of gamma. And burn everything in the cosmos.

Dark matter has NO gravity properties.

Gravity comes from dipoles. Not particles.

It is not causing anything. It’s non-reactive. Inert matter. Dead matter.

One gamma emission from a one cubic meter density particle, would probability be too dim to detect.

High frequency emission, like light, and higher, need a flux of intensity to be able to detect.

We can detect one particle much easier than one emission from it. In a lab.

But invisible and undetectable in space.

A matter inventory in this cosmos is impossible.

 

[Jzz]

The solar wind, isolated particles are accelerated away from the sun continuously. They do not radiate.

And if any of the particles out in space were to radiate, the emissions would be hard x-ray or higher gamma. Low frequencies can not come from particles. Unless they are aligned, like in/for radio.

Space is bathed in EM, But all the emissions below hard x-ray, are dipole emissions. X-ray, UV, visible, IR…. All are from dipoles. Neutral matter.

The only way to get a space particle to radiate, is to hit it with a gamma. Charge it up, so it can re-emit.

You can turn dark matter into light, by shinning gamma on it. Then you can see it.

But it would take a lot of gamma. And burn everything in the cosmos.

Dark matter has NO gravity properties.

Gravity comes from dipoles. Not particles.

It is not causing anything. It’s non-reactive. Inert matter. Dead matter.

One gamma emission from a one cubic meter density particle, would probability be too dim to detect.

High frequency emission, like light, and higher, need a flux of intensity to be able to detect.

We can detect one particle much easier than one emission from it. In a lab.

But invisible and undetectable in space.

A matter inventory in this cosmos is impossible.

Classical motion: You paint a bleak and hugely biased picture of space! The early radio era (earth era) was saturated with persistent, unaccounted-for background noise that was so intense it overwhelmed transmissions. How is it possible to now say that space is ‘empty’ of radiation? The background radiation was there, always present, consistent across time and direction. Penzias and Wilson didn’t discover something new; they identified something ancient that had always been heard but never explained. Early engineers and physicists working with vacuum tube radios had no reason to expect absolute silence—they encountered static not just from local sources, but from the cosmos itself. Modern science has grown so dependent on data filtering and signal-to-noise optimization that it often forgets that the noise itself is the signal—the fabric of the cosmos whispering its history. We tune out the universe in the name of precision and then declare it silent. That’s not progress; that’s epistemic narrowing. Yet, broadly speaking you maintain that such a signal is not possible given the sparsity of matter in deep space. You claim that the signals are so sparse that to all purposes they do not exist and cannot mix to produce a perfect (given the size of the Universe) black body component.

 

[Classical Motion]

It is bleak and dark, sorry for my perceived bias.

Here’s my point. The solar wind dynamic is old and continuous. And that dynamic is against and breaks the laws of all properties and knowledge of EM force and the G force….. that we have measured and propose our theories with here on earth.

Right out in the open and in our face.

No one can explain this, and no one seems to be concerned with this. And it breaks all theory. All EM theory and all G theory.

If I were a particle guy or a gravity guy, I would want much more research and measurement of this solar wind.

There are several unknown accelerations involved, and accelerations are forces, unknown forces.

Anti forces. Not seen in all other interactions and dynamics.

The acceleration from the sun is an anti gravity force. No one knows where and when this acceleration stops. It lasts for months. Months of acceleration AWAY from the star.

The EM force appears to be nullified with this acceleration. The solar wind is charged. But the attractive and repulsive force of charge seems to be turned off during this acceleration. Plus the charge does does radiate. AND there appears NOT to be a magnetic field associated with this accelerated charge. This does not happen on earth.

All these dynamic and measurements….. are against all theory of EM and gravity.

But I don’t see much concern about it.

But they are still quite sure of space time and space expansion and CMBR….. for reality.

This seems ****-eyed to me.

Imagine the solar wind from galaxies. The wind from millions of stars. Thru eons of time.

It’s the entropy of the cosmos and no one knows why. And a steady decay of all g systems.

 

[Catastrophe]

If I were you, I would not worry too much about this.

Cat

 

[Jzz]

I wonder what would happen if one of our more distant satellites or space craft, the Voyager space craft come to mind, tuned into the static that used to be received here on earth prior to improvements in technology. Makes you wonder just what is out there!