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

[Gibsense]

If this is true, we have already fallen into 1 BH, or at least crossed the event horizon of a BH. With the Milky Way residing within the event horizon of the BH Sagittarius, wouldn't we perceive the universe as expanding? As well as the space between galaxies that aren't gravitationally bound. Maybe the limit that will add space between galaxies is that the EHs of those BHs residing near the center of galaxies have intersected each other. Making those galaxies gravitationally bound.

The amount of mass in the universe (I may be out of date with this) is very close to being able, by gravity, to contract the universe. That is the whole thing would become gravitationally bound. This would presumably produce an event horizon to define its unbound limits. If we imagine, as a thought experiment, an outside observer looking at the event horizon, would they be able to differentiate it from a black hole? Quite a thought CryptoCraig

In summary, if you had a sufficiently symmetric and static situation where the total mass of the universe produced an event horizon, an observer located outside that horizon would see gravitational effects identical to those of a black hole of equivalent mass.

 

[Jzz]

The OP seems to have resulted in an ongoing debate centered around the interpretation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB is commonly understood as relic radiation from the recombination phase of the Big Bang, approximately 13.6 billion years ago. Many of the rebuttals to alternative explanations in the OP rely on the assumption that the present-day Universe is too diffuse—too lacking in matter—for temperature or radiation to have any significant effect. This leads to the view that the CMB must be a remnant from an earlier, denser era and that its properties support theories of dark energy and universal expansion.

(1) However, the assumption of extreme sparsity may be oversimplified. While it is often claimed that the average density of the Universe is around one particle per cubic metre, better estimates suggest it is closer to three particles per cubic metre. Though this is still sparse, it is not negligible and could support energy interactions across intergalactic distances.

(2) Furthermore, the Universe is not devoid of radiation. Early valve radios detected persistent background static, sometimes intensifying into sharp squeals. While some of this noise was of local origin, a significant portion came from space. Cosmic rays, detectable even with simple school-built cloud chambers, are further evidence that space is actively filled with energy. The assumption that the present-day Universe emits no significant signal is demonstrably false.

(3) This means that the hydrogen atoms drifting in deep space—about three per cubic metre—are constantly subjected to background microwave radiation. Atoms typically cannot re-emit microwave radiation directly, as the photon energies involved are too low to escape atomic orbitals. Instead, atoms that do absorb microwave energy, transition to metastable states, and later return to lower energy levels by emitting photons. hydrogen is one of the few atoms that participates in such interactions.

(4) To illustrate how such atomic transitions work, consider how cesium atomic clocks function. Supercooled cesium-133 atoms are trapped and exposed to microwave radiation. When the radiation frequency exactly matches their resonance—9,192,631,770 Hz—the atoms absorb energy and shift to a higher energy state. The resonance frequency is identified at the point where the most atoms make this transition. This predictable behavior serves as the basis for our precise definition of a second. It also demonstrates that atoms interact with microwave radiation in measurable, repeatable ways.

(5) By analogy, if atoms in deep space absorb ambient microwave radiation, they may similarly transition to metastable states. Eventually, they emit what the AND theory refers to as a 'conduction photon'—the lowest energy photon an electron can emit. These emissions could lead to temporary dipole formations between neighboring atoms, generating radiation in the microwave range.

(6) In these conditions, atoms remain separate due to electrostatic repulsion, but gravity still acts upon them. The result is a delicate equilibrium where atoms regulate their energy through minimal currents or oscillatory dipole interactions, again leading to microwave radiation.

(7) This continuous, low-level activity offers an alternative explanation for the CMB. Rather than being a remnant from the early Universe, the microwave background may be a dynamic and ongoing phenomenon resulting from interactions among isolated atoms and ever-present radiation. This explanation aligns with observed microwave characteristics and offers a fresh angle on cosmological questions, independent of relic-based assumptions and the dark energy model.

Here is a passage from stack exchange, that lends some credence to what is claimed:

“The dominant source of black body radiation are transient oscillating dipoles induced by thermal vibrations within the material. If we treat a solid as a cloud of electrons intermingled with a cloud of nuclei, then any thermally induced vibrations will cause small local changes in the average electron and nucleus density, and this will result in a small local electric dipole. As these dipoles change with time they emit the electromagnetic radiation that we see as black body radiation.”
If the assumption is made that gravity, in the absence of thermal activity, draws the isolated particles close together this
could mean that they form a good approximation fo the above conditions.

 

[Gibsense]

If the assumption is made that gravity, in the absence of thermal activity, draws the isolated particles close together this
could mean that they form a good approximation fo the above conditions.

You are saying that the CMB describes the recent universe and not the past. I apologise for not reading through the whole thread but what are the consequences it this were true?

AI says:
If the CMB were describing current conditions rather than the early universe, the consequences would be far-reaching:

• A radical reinterpretation of cosmic history would be necessary.
• Our cosmological parameters and models—particularly those established by analysis of the CMB—would have to be revisited under a new paradigm.
• The inflationary model and theories of cosmic origin would lose a central pillar of observational support, prompting the search for alternative explanations.

 

[Jzz]

You are saying that the CMB describes the recent universe and not the past. I apologise for not reading through the whole thread but what are the consequences it this were true?

AI says:
If the CMB were describing current conditions rather than the early universe, the consequences would be far-reaching:

• A radical reinterpretation of cosmic history would be necessary.
• Our cosmological parameters and models—particularly those established by analysis of the CMB—would have to be revisited under a new paradigm.
• The inflationary model and theories of cosmic origin would lose a central pillar of observational support, prompting the search for alternative explanations.

Yes, thank you Gibsense, the irony is that the greater part of the Universe does have characteristics that indicate a cmb like radiation is possible.

 

[billslugg]

Although the CMB is a relic of an ultra hot fireball 13 billion years ago, when the light arrives at Earth, it is "current". We are looking at a current image of something that happened billions of years ago.
When you look at your friend across the room, when the light arrives at your eyes, you define that as "current".

 

[Catastrophe]

Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.

Two are kept in the British Library (one of which was badly damaged by fire in 1731), one in Salisbury cathedral, and one in Lincoln castle. They were all written out by different people, and while little is known about who those people were, the documents themselves provide a fascinating insight into their labours.

Billslugg, if you look at a copy of Magna Carta, you are also looking at a current image.

Thus, a current image may be of something which existed long ago, but no longer existing, or it may be of something long ago, but still existing. This is a different example.

However, they are different cases. Both images are current, but the "reality" of one is history, whilst the other is still real.

An example of ambiguous language.
I would say "just another example of 'the map is not the territory' ".

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

All the far away stars and galaxies are moving away from us. They say this because of redshift. We have been measuring redshift for 80+ years now.

Lets remeasure it. If all those old shifts have not changed, that means the speed has not changed.

What’s the chances of that? Not only that, it would also imply, that the direction of those velocities has not changed. A direction change would change shift too.

What are the chances that the speed and direction of all those objects in all those directions----- remain constant?

Is that really probable? Current theories predict acceleration.

The only thing those far off objects have in common is distance. And distance is the only thing that separates and rates that redshift.

An interesting un-explained measurement. A research project in waiting.

No matter what the result.

 

[Jzz]

All the far away stars and galaxies are moving away from us. They say this because of redshift. We have been measuring redshift for 80+ years now.

Lets remeasure it. If all those old shifts have not changed, that means the speed has not changed.

What’s the chances of that? Not only that, it would also imply, that the direction of those velocities has not changed. A direction change would change shift too.

What are the chances that the speed and direction of all those objects in all those directions----- remain constant?

Is that really probable? Current theories predict acceleration.

The only thing those far off objects have in common is distance. And distance is the only thing that separates and rates that redshift.

An interesting un-explained measurement. A research project in waiting.

No matter what the result.

Classical motion’s post is deeply significant. As it turns out the gist of what is stated about the redshift, not being detected at the accepted values, is more or less the reality. In fact, there is substantial evidence that this is the case.

Eric Lerner conducted a redshift survey based on the Tolman brightness test form 2006 – 2014 using both the Galex orbiting telescope to collect nearby ultraviolet data and the Hubble Deep field to collect distant data, as well as historical data on redshifts.

Lerner's work indicates that direct measurements of galaxy surface brightness do not exhibit the dimming expected in an expanding universe. Instead, the data aligns more closely with a static universe model, challenging conventional cosmological assumptions: Contrary to the expectations of the expanding universe model (which predicts a surface brightness dimming proportional to (1+z)^4), Lerner's analysis found that the surface brightness remained nearly constant across the examined redshift range. Lerner’s findings, though well-documented, have not gained widespread acceptance among cosmologists. This is mainly due to the heavy dependence on the CMB as being compelling proof that extreme redshifts were possible due to cosmological expansion. Without this compelling evidence to substantiate it, cosmological expansion and dark energy theory would collapse.

There is strong evidence for EMR from close to the Big Bang epoch having been detected. Interestingly, this radiation does not display the extreme redshift characteristic of the CMB, but rather shows a redshift more consistent with that expected from the Hubble expansion.