Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang.

Den 23.02.2025 20:58, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

You're still saying "duh" at the end of your comments.

You have the nasty habit of not quoting what you are responding
to, so I have to guess what you are talking about.
I suppose the following is a response to this post of mine:

Den 23.02.2025 20:07, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 21.02.2025 20:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

The velocity-distance relation requires the furthest galaxies to recede
the fastest, making this Big Bang universe anisotropic.
>
The CMBR is isotropic.

 The temperature of the CMBR black body radiation is on average 2.7250⁰K,
but fluctuates between 2.7252⁰K and 2.7248⁰K in different directions.
 So it is almost isotropic, but not quite.
 

>
Therefore, the CMBR disproves the Big Bang.

 Do you mean that the velocity-distance relation requires
the temperature of the CMBR black body radiation to be
be anisotropic?
 Can you explain why? :-D

 It is virtually isotropic and the anisotropy is not consistent with a
velocity-distance relation. Yes, the velocity-distance relation does
require the temperature to be anisotropic, so you are wrong. It requires
it because it would have to be dispersed more further out resulting from
the expansion. How can you quibble with that?

You repeat your claim, but didn't answer my question:
Can you please explain why the velocity-distance relation
requires the CMBR temperature to be anisotropic?
It is indeed a weird claim, and:
"It requires it because it would have to be dispersed more further
  out resulting from the expansion."
Is no explanation, it's another unfounded claim.
Why would the CMBR temperature have to be dispersed more further
out resulting from the expansion?
The temperature of the CMBR was 3000⁰K when the radiation was
emitted, and the expansion has now cooled it down to 2.725⁰K.
That is the result of the expansion.
Do you claim the velocity-distance relation requires
the CMBR temperature to be anisotropic because the temperature
would have to be dispersed (cooled?) more further out resulting
from the expansion ?
Please explain.
---------------------
I know from where you have got your stupid idea.
In another posting you quoted  David Rowland:
Quote begin:
According to the Big Bang velocity-distance relation it is the same so
there would be a sprinkling of great attractors. If there is not, then
that contradicts the Big Bang Baloney. "From 1989 until 1993, COBE
satellite Explorer 66 investigated the cosmic microwave background [18].
Astrophysicists expected to see evidence of directional dependency
(anisotropy) that could be
traced back to the site of the alleged big bang. That was not what they
saw, however. Instead, Explorer 66 measured an isotropic blackbody
spectrum with little variation across the sky." - "Something is
Seriously Wrong with Cosmology" - David Rowland.
Quote end
It's not very smart to repeat claims you do not understand.
Just about everything David Rowland writes is nonsense.
Let's look at some of it:
About COBE:
"Astrophysicists expected to see evidence of directional dependency
(anisotropy) that could be traced back to the site of the alleged
big bang."
It was known from Penzias and Wilson's measurements in 1965
that the CMBR was approximately isotropic at ~3.5⁰K, but since
they measured it only at one frequency, nothing was known about
the spectrum.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html
When COBE was launched in 1989, astronomers thought the CMBR
was radiation from the BB, which mean that they expected
the CMBR to be isotropic black body radiation.
Which was what COBE found.
Claiming that:
"Astrophysicists expected to see evidence of directional dependency
  (anisotropy) that could be traced back to the site of the alleged
  big bang."
is incredible stupid nonsense.
So what about the statement:
"According to the Big Bang velocity-distance relation it is the same so
  there would be a sprinkling of great attractors."?
A great attractor can only be a part of space where the collecton
of galaxies is denser than average. It will surely be
a sprinkling of great attractors in the univerese, the galaxies
are not evenly distributed. But what has this to do with the
velocity-distance relation?
Something is seriously wrong with David Rowland.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/