I don't think space is expanding.

[Mike Helland]

As far as I'm aware, the data shows no measurable deviations from a perfect black-body curve greater than the experimental error of the measurement.

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-enduring-enigma-of-the-cosmic-cold-spot/

"At first glance, the CMB has a nearly perfect black-body spectrum (uniform temperature), and looks isotropic to scales of around 10–5 K. But at micro-kelvin scales we begin to see variations in temperature, in the form of hot and cold patches."

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Well, this says there are black body stars:

https://aasnova.org/2018/10/31/perfect-blackbodies-in-the-sky/
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aac88b

That's interesting; I didn't know about that. However, since the CMB couldn't realistically be produced by such stars, you aren't any closer to actually having an alternative cosmology that predicts it than you were before.

 

[Dave Rogers]

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-enduring-enigma-of-the-cosmic-cold-spot/

"At first glance, the CMB has a nearly perfect black-body spectrum (uniform temperature), and looks isotropic to scales of around 10–5 K. But at micro-kelvin scales we begin to see variations in temperature, in the form of hot and cold patches."

Do you understand why that doesn't say that the CMB spectrum is not a perfect black-body curve? If not, then all you're doing is pointing at sentences, saying that one word looks like another word, and thinking that means you understand the sentence.

Dave

 

[Mike Helland]

That's interesting; I didn't know about that. However, since the CMB couldn't realistically be produced by stars, you aren't any closer to actually having an alternative cosmology that predicts it than you were before.

The CMB specifically, no?

And if we're going to say that Regeren calculating cosmic rays to be 2.8K in 1933 and using a stationary universe doesn't count, let's just say, let's count this as a fault.

Let's also count the CMB cold spot, asymmetric hemispheric temps, inability to determine the expansion rate of the universe, and relying on unobserved conjectures like dark energy to be faults of the standard model.

I think having doubts about both models is justified.

 

[Mike Helland]

Do you understand why that doesn't say that the CMB spectrum is not a perfect black-body curve?

I think so.

The black body spectrum refers to receiving photons from all parts of the continuous spectrum in quantities that form a smooth curve.

Right?

And looking in one direction and seeing one temperature, and looking in another direction and seeing a different temperature is just receiving photons from two different places, and each set of photons could still be a smooth black body spectrum.

Right?

But that would imply to me, the CMB isn't one black body, but many black bodies and they are around 2.8K but not exactly. And there are fewer of them in the direction of the cold spot.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think so.

The black body spectrum refers to receiving photons from all parts of the continuous spectrum in quantities that form a smooth curve.

Right?

And looking in one direction and seeing one temperature, and looking in another direction and seeing a different temperature is just receiving photons from two different places, and each set of photons could still be a smooth black body spectrum.

Right?

But that would imply to me, the CMB isn't one black body, but many black bodies and they are around 2.8K but not exactly. And there are fewer of them in the direction of the cold spot.

Oh dear. You were doing so well up till then.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

And if we're going to say that Regeren calculating cosmic rays to be 2.8K in 1933 and using a stationary universe doesn't count, let's just say, let's count this as a fault.

You can keep saying that if you want, but it's wrong.

Dave

 

[Mike Helland]

Oh dear. You were doing so well up till then.

Right.

What you quoted is how my hypothesis explains the cold spot and hemispheric temperature differences.

That's significantly different from the standard model, which is "Multiverse".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Right.

What you quoted is how my hypothesis explains the cold spot and hemispheric temperature differences.

That's significantly different from the standard model, which is "Multiverse".

No. You need to go away and take a course in basic physics; at the moment you don't understand your subject matter well enough to have even the vaguest idea what you're getting wrong.

Dave

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The CMB specifically, no?

And if we're going to say that Regeren calculating cosmic rays to be 2.8K in 1933 and using a stationary universe doesn't count, let's just say, let's count this as a fault.

Of course calculating the temperature of cosmic rays doesn't count as predicting the CMB. There's no "if" about it. And I have no idea what you mean by a "fault". How does Regeren's work suggest a "fault" in mainstream cosmology?

Let's also count the CMB cold spot,

Count it as what? A fault in mainstream cosmology? And more specfically, the thesis that spacetime is expanding? Why should we do that? We have an observation that is currently unexplained. *Maybe* the correct explanation will require discarding the expansion of spacetime, but I see no reason to believe that. Why do you think the CMB cold spot counter-indicates spacetime expansion?

asymmetric hemispheric temps, inability to determine the expansion rate of the universe, and relying on unobserved conjectures like dark energy to be faults of the standard model.

I think having doubts about both models is justified.

See above. And so far the only justification you have offered for doubt is that you don't like/understand mainstream cosmology.

There are things we don't currently have explanations for. Maybe the correct explanation will require drastic revision of currently-held theories and maybe it won't. That's true of any science; it's not special to cosmology. And whatever new model replaces mainstream cosmology will still have to explain all the things that current theory *does* explain, such as why the CMB is a blackbody. Trying to replace it with a theory that doesn't is a non-starter, even if BBT is completely wrong.

 

[Mike Helland]

Why should we do that? We have an observation that is currently unexplained.

Multiple observations:

1. How fast is the universe expanding can't be determined (Hubble tension)
2. CMB Cold Spot
3. CMB asymmetric hemisphere temps

Even after the dark energy fudge factors, still no explanation.

Why do you think the CMB cold spot counter-indicates spacetime expansion?

Because it's widely accepted as counter to the theory by cosmologists:

https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/51...-cold-spot-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background

So far the only justification you have offered for doubt is that you don't like/understand mainstream cosmology.

Cosmology is in public crisis over their model.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cosmology+crisis

It's not 1993 anymore.

Lots of observations justify the skepticism in the field.

 

[Mike Helland]

No. You need to go away and take a course in basic physics; at the moment you don't understand your subject matter well enough to have even the vaguest idea what you're getting wrong.

Point taken.

I think the CMB cold spot to the south is because there's less stuff in that direction in the observable universe.

For the record, what do you think it is?

 

[theprestige]

I like how we went from "cosmologists are refining their predictions in some places as new data comes in and measurements get more precise" to "therefore the whole thing is wrong and needs to be thrown out and replaced with ridiculous handwaving".

 

[Mike Helland]

I like how we went from "cosmologists are refining their predictions in some places as new data comes in and measurements get more precise" to "therefore the whole thing is wrong and needs to be thrown out and replaced with ridiculous handwaving".

New observations and measurements will do this.

This isn't the 20th century.

The growing crisis in cosmology is being reported in public now:

https://www.wired.com/story/cosmology-is-in-crisis-over-how-to-measure-the-universe/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ant-galaxies-in-the-universe/?sh=7f84c7e02fd5
https://theweek.com/articles/889916/growing-crisis-cosmology

 

[Dave Rogers]

Point taken.

I think the CMB cold spot to the south is because there's less stuff in that direction in the observable universe.

For the record, what do you think it is?

No, the point clearly isn't taken. If there were "less stuff" in that direction, that wouldn't produce a cold spot in the CMB. The fact that you're able to make, and repeat, that erroneous belief demonstrates that you have no idea what a black-body spectrum is or how a temperature is calculated from one. As a result your thoughts are so poorly informed as to be worthless. Your level of ignorance is far too profound to be addressed in a forum like this; you need to bring your level of knowledge up to at least undergraduate level before it's even worth trying to explain to you what you're getting wrong, and that could take years.

Dave

 

[Mike Helland]

No, the point clearly isn't taken. If there were "less stuff" in that direction, that wouldn't produce a cold spot in the CMB. The fact that you're able to make, and repeat, that erroneous belief demonstrates that you have no idea what a black-body spectrum is or how a temperature is calculated from one. As a result your thoughts are so poorly informed as to be worthless. Your level of ignorance is far too profound to be addressed in a forum like this; you need to bring your level of knowledge up to at least undergraduate level before it's even worth trying to explain to you what you're getting wrong, and that could take years.

So what do you think the CMB cold spot is?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

New observations and measurements will do this.

This isn't the 20th century.

The growing crisis in cosmology is being reported in public now:

https://www.wired.com/story/cosmology-is-in-crisis-over-how-to-measure-the-universe/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ant-galaxies-in-the-universe/?sh=7f84c7e02fd5
https://theweek.com/articles/889916/growing-crisis-cosmology

THIS JUST IN!!! POPULAR SCIENCE JOURNALISM HYPES UP SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS TO MAKE THEM SOUND MORE DRAMATIC TO LAY AUDIENCES!!!!

 

[Mike Helland]

THIS JUST IN!!! POPULAR SCIENCE JOURNALISM HYPES UP SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS TO MAKE THEM SOUND MORE DRAMATIC TO LAY AUDIENCES!!!!

Dude, the papers are endless:

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=arxiv+hubble+tension

In 1993, you would have been totally justified in believing the expansion of the universe is a fact.

At least, I sure did back then.

Observations of acceleration, CMB anomalies, and the conclusions that our universe is 96% dark stuff really change things.

Not all cosmologists think dark energy and multiverses are the way forward.

 

[Mike Helland]

"The tension seems to have grown into a full-blown incompatibility between our views of the early- and late-time universe," said Adam Riess, a Nobel laureate and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Distinguished Professor who leads a team of researchers measuring the Hubble Constant by studying structures in the nearby universe. "At this point, clearly it's not simply some gross error in any one measurement. It's as though you predicted how tall a child would become from a growth chart and then found the adult he or she became greatly exceeded the prediction. We are very perplexed."

https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/07/12/adam-riess-universe-expansion-hubble-constant/

 

[CORed]

I like how we went from "cosmologists are refining their predictions in some places as new data comes in and measurements get more precise" to "therefore the whole thing is wrong and needs to be thrown out and replaced with ridiculous handwaving".

I also note that, like most physics cranks, the OP doesn't have a coherent alternative theory (or in this case, any theory or hypothesis at all), nor is his distrust based on any real understanding of the topic. It seems rather, much like many of the Relativity cranks , based on not much more than an emotional conviction that a concept that rubs him the wrong way just has to be wrong. I don't claim to remotely understand cosmology, beyond the kindergarten level popular summaries.

Based on general principles, I will say the anomalies or unexplained phenomena may indicate a need for more information and a little tweaking here and there, or may indicate a fundamental flaw in current thinking. Possibly some day, a genius will come along and offer up a theory that better fits what we know, and probably get a Nobel Prize for their work. I highly doubt, however, that any new theory will overturn expanding space, as the observational evidence for it seems to be very solid.Until that happens, nitpicking by people who really don't know what they are talking about serves no useful purpose.