hackenslash wrote:See you when you get back to the whacky warehouse.

I think this one has made far too many trips to the Wacky Warehouse.

lbiar wrote:(for astronomers and amateurs):

It's time to understand that an impossible is only that: impossible: expansion of the universe and Big Bang are only impossibles.

1 - Expansion of the universe (really creation of space) is against science and physic laws, science not admit create anything from nothing.

No, its entirely according to the laws of physics. BB does not claim anything was created from nothing.

lbiar wrote:2 - Expand (creation) in all directions and from all points is impossible according to geometrical figures, there are not any figure that admits this in 3d. Remember that we see the universe in 3d and by that the expansion need to be in this 3 dimensions.

No, its entirely possible.

lbiar wrote:3 - The universe is visually flat, it's impossible an expansion not flat give a universe flat, in 3d the only possible flat expansion would be cubic: this is against expansion theory.

No its not. It is (according to recent evidence) geometrically flat which is not the same as being visually or physically flat in any way whatsoever.

Thats 0 for 3 on understanding what shape the universe actually is and what the BB Theory states. As you don't even understand the basics its pretty safe to say that all your other assertions are garbage as well.

I'd imagine there's a gigantic conspiracy afoot in the "scientific" community to discredit these results, which is why the Nobel keeps going to the same clique of "scientists".

"This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old.[7] At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... _radiation

The CMBR according to Big Bang theory was visible at 3000 K, but according to physic cannot dissipate like theory say.

A heat body in a cold environment dissipates quickly, but according to the Big Bang theory all the environment has the same temperature (or near the same: homogeneity and isotropy). - "The radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000"

So a body heat in an environment heat cannot dissipate easy like seem in the Big Bang theory, also cannot dissipate to nothing because all is all the universe and all is hot. (energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and heat also).

By that only can to dissipate to new space (Big Bang theory tell over space creation), and according to the temperature of the new space created.

If the new space is created at 0 K is easy to dissipate heat, but need time and space, we see here, but if the new space is created with temperature need more space.

For an ideal relation (space created at 0 K) and a difference of 1 K: "reported that the highest power fluctuations occur at scales of approximately one degree" and "Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100" and "The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K" this means:

3000 - 2.725
x - 1

x = 2.725/3000 = 1100 K

So according to Big Bang theory and CMBR temperature the emission is at 3000 and at least until 1100/2 = 2450 K

1100/2 = 550 from 3000 is more of 18%

In a hot environment the space need at least grow 18% (supposing creation of space at 0 K), and more with more creation of space at more temperature.

A universe expansion of 18% in volume need at least (in square and spherical: I don't know the real geometrical figure that universe can expand):

In cubic: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, - 1.06 x 1.06 x 1.06 = 1.19, so at lest need 6% expand (or more).

In sphere: 0.5 radius is (4/3 pi x r3) = 0.52 - (0.52 x 1.18 = 0,6136)

0.53 is 0,623 - is radius, by that diameter is also 0.6

In both cases need at least expand 0.06 or more.

Actual expansion (less in past, expansion is accelerating) - 73.8 ± 2.2 (km/s)/Mpc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Actual expansion (less in past, expansion is accelerating) - 73.8 ± 2.2 (km/s)/Mpc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Put it in 74 km/s/mpc = 266400 km/hour = 2333664000 km/year
1 megaparsec is "3.26 million light-years" = 3.08568025 e22 meters = 3.08568025 e19 km
6% is 0.185140815 e19 km
0.185140815 e19 km / 2333664000 km/year = 793.348.207 year to expand a 6% by axis

The background (cmbr) is at 13.75 billion lightyears
By freeze the background need to see until at least 12.4 - 0.8 = 12.95
"burst occurred at 13 billion light years" - http://www.edu.cn/20050913/3151504.shtml
This star would to be in the CMBR.

The CMBR probably need to exist from 13.75 billion to probably near 6 billion because the space creation (expansion false) probably is not at 0 K.

(remember that in past the expansion was less, new space created has temperature [or temperature of Big Bang would to be infinite], ...)

If the creation of space (expansion) would to be at 0 K the universe that from Big Bang to CMBR size expand infinite times would to be at Big Bang with infinite temperature. The Inflation was before CMBR and size of the universe in CMBR is infinite bigger that in Big Bang.

This is impossible, star without background, and freeze quickly of CMBR in a hot environment.

This seems near the creationism of Darwin that gives to the universe creation less time by bible that dinosaurs exist.

The Big Bang theory also not explain why Big Bang also need to create heat more of matter, space, energy, time, ...

Why the CMBR need to be hot? The Big Bang is not a bomb.

Treat to take evidences for Big Bang (impossible) is near to believers that treat to obtain evidences that pyramids was made by martians.

My model (against Big Bang theory) is according to CMBR, this is by pre-stars (gas clouds heating and with microwave radiation stretched by visual expansion).

Also I write over that CMBR at this distance 1 only degree is equal to 2000 milky way in my webpage.


notes:

- An impossible only is an impossible: creation of space from nothing, creation of all from nothing, there are not possible geometrical figure according to universe expansion theory (or only with value zero), this of CMBR temperature and more, ...

- A believer always search evidences (false) according to their belief, but a belief is not science is only pseudoscience.

- I cannot have embarrassment to say the true, probably you will have it in future of believe an impossible. In any forum or newspaper, ... I say the true, you are believer and belief in impossibles.

- All believer belief that has proofs and evidences: UFO, pyramid, astrologers, martians, ...

- I'm treating by near 2 years to show that expansion of the universe is impossible, all (including newspaper) negate it, but this is not the evidence that you have reason, impossible only is impossible.

- All I say is absurd, idiot and silly (all I say is according to physic laws and consider all facts), all you believe is evident (but against physic laws, new bodies, new physic laws, incompatibilities, impossibles)

- Burden of proof: Who affirm anything need to give the proof - Sure none is given.

- Seem that with astronomers and amateur to say the true has not value: Take an impossible like true has 3 errors: believe in a false true, don't search the true and don't admit the true.

- Any say that there are not law against create space, also are not law against create time but : Can you create 1 second between 2 seconds?: No. I have a hypothesis over this: 1h in my webpage

- That you and all astronomers believe in Big Bang don't make it real, also in past all thought that Earth was flat and that Earth was the center of the universe: this only means that universities seem places of proselytism and that all think homogeneously and according to believe and against to science.

- I consider this information rejected, this is not your true, but in this 2 years is normal. A believer reject all against their belief.

- For me is sufficient with the 2 more proofs: nothing can to be created from nothing, there is not a geometrical figure according to expansion of the universe need.

- I consider you and astronomers pseudo-scientist, so I go to write to other branches of science (real science, not pseudo), according to that demonstrate that UFO don't exist is not to demonstrate to believers in UFOS, is to demonstrate to science and society.

- "You cannot fool all the time to all the people": soon or later the true would be know.

- I'm according to visual expansion, this is a fact: Hubble's law, redshift, time delay. They say that visual expansion is real expansion, but this last is impossible (equal to give a mirror the reality)

- facts: light is curved by gravity, time delay, redshift, Hubble's law, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the universe is flat visually (A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180º and parallel lines stay parallel), cosmic noise. But all this is not proof of real expansion.

- All are responsible for our acts, not only me.

- This: cosmology and astronomy in general today is only pseudoscience, with name of science, impossibles, .... Near your evidences: "Scientific Proof of UFOs - http://www.pr-inside.com/scientific-pro ... 193411.htm

- After near 2 years I cannot continue with patience, I believed this is urgent, but I see that you cannot consider it.

- You can continue with your believe but not call it science, this is pseudoscience, believe, sect, creationism (against Darwin). But I don't need read your arguments in your belief.

- Viewed from a different angle, this fallacy misplaces the burden of proof. When an issue is being debated, someone who wants to defend the truth of a claim must have some evidence for it. One can't "prove" one's side by simply knocking down the other side. (Remember: you might both be wrong if there is a third alternative.) - http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/p ... #ignorance

-"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

- In this forum I don't put my webpage, moderators say it's spam.

Luis Biarge Baldellou

Thank you for standing me!

lbiar wrote:"This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old.[7] At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... _radiation

The CMBR according to Big Bang theory was visible at 3000 K, but according to physic cannot dissipate like theory say.

A heat body in a cold environment dissipates quickly...

Your quote from Wikipedia doesn't talk about heat dissipating. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

The Universe doesn't cool because heat dissipates, it cools because it expands. You can see essentially the same effect (temperature of a gas going down as the vessel containing it is expanded) in a high-school physics experiment. That does not involve the dissipation of heat either.

It would help if you tried to understand what you're criticising before you criticise it. For example, when you quote "reported that the highest power fluctuations occur at scales of approximately one degree", the 'one degree' mentioned is an angular scale of one degree, not a temperature difference of one kelvin, as you seem to think. And you try to express the Hubble parameter, which has units of inverse time, in units of speed. In fact it's hard to find anything correct in your post at all, to be honest.

lbiar wrote:"This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old.[7] At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... _radiation

The CMBR according to Big Bang theory was visible at 3000 K, but according to physic cannot dissipate like theory say.

You are confused. You may be helped by this article:

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric


In addition, this article explains the proper way of calculating the temperature vs time:

http://www.astro.uu.se/~nisse/courses/kos2006/lnotes/ln6.pdf

Note the result T1=T0(1+z)