RMP: it looks like there is an assumption of an expanding universe built into much of the current standard hypothesis.

Of course, there is no possibility that it is not currently expanding at present.

RMP: So if the universe is not expanding different conclusions would be in order for the same factual observations.

Yes and no. Even if you question expansion, the key fact in this case is the spectra of quasars which show the Gunn-Peterson Trough, and that means that non-ionised gas existed at that time and the the universe expanded by several hundred times between the CMB and that era.

RMP: and the stars formed prior to cosmic inflation.

That is obviously impossible as I have said many times.

Thank you, very interesting, Dr. De Mees, r

We observe the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at a redshift of 1090 and that radiation is extermely even, variations in temperature being on the order of 10 parts per millon. The amount of variability is much too low for stars to form and the first stars are not expected to have formed before a redshift of about 25 which is about 130 million years later. Inflation on the other hand had to be complete before the first atoms formed which was at an age of a few minutes and current models estimate the end of inflation at about 10^(-32) seconds. Certainly it had to be complete long before the CMB was released or it would not be as homogeneous as is observed. You have the order of events the wrong way round.

Thank You George D.,

so if the Stars formed before inflation, it was before the CMB was released which was / or at least could have been released, during inflation,

but why do you say 'long before' ? what difference would it make if just before or long before?

why do you say the wrong order of events?

i do understand it is a different order of events than the current conventional where the stars formed 'out there' ;) but this is to help understand if/how an alternate mutually exclusive hypothesis could be/is valid.

Thank You George D.,

No problem, I'm happy to pass on what I know.

RMP: so if the Stars formed before inflation, it was before the CMB was released which was / or at least could have been released, during inflation,

No, measuring from some arbitrary datum, inflation finished after one hundredth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second. The temperature was so high that no matter in the form we know now could have existed.

The first atomic nuclei, almost all helium, formed a few minutes later, that process took about quarter of an hour.

The CMB was released atoms 378,000 years after that, when the nuclei joined with free electrons to form the first atoms. That happened over a span of about 140,000 years.

Prior to the release of the CMB, radiation pressure prevented matter clumping together so stars couldn't form, it took perhaps another 130 million years before that could happen (the number depends on the mass of the early stars, they were probably much bigger than current stars).

RMP: but why do you say 'long before' ?

A tiny fraction of a second versus a hundred million years is a huge ratio, about 47 decades difference.

RMP: what difference would it make if just before or long before?

If it was a small difference, it might depend on the accuracy of observations. In reality, these events happened so far apart that there's no question of the order.

RMP: why do you say the wrong order of events?

Because inflation happened first, then nuclei formed, then atoms formed, then stars formed.

RMP: i do understand it is a different order of events than the current conventional where the stars formed 'out there' ;) but this is to help understand if/how an alternate mutually exclusive hypothesis could be/is valid.

Stars are formed from hydrogen and helium, so you can't form stars prior to the existence of matter.

TY for feedback George,

I still feel you are giving the current conventional narrative without considering how it could have happened if stars did proceed inflation.

for example if the stars were 1 billion +/- times more dense.. as hypothesized in The Pearlman Spiral.

which gives the analogy of the heat in a microwave oven how it expands the microwave popcorn, but on a universal scale with the unopposed kernels representing super dense galaxies.

Obviously something survived the inflation in usable form if we and the stars exists.

On a ratio basis under The Pearlman Spiral to The Standard Cosmology Model (SCM) is 1: 2,389197  which is 5,776 compared to 13.8 B.

So plenty of time for star formation prior to a day 4 inflation when taking into account the sum of all the 4 forces were in close proximity.

keep in mind w/ the SCM the stars have moved away from us an additional 30B LY at over 2X the speed of light on average over the past 13B years w/o being eradicated.

attribute that to metric expansion or whatever we want, but it proves conventional science recognizes it is possible for stars to move apart at faster than the speed of light and to cover a lot more more than the 13B LY estimate used by The Pearlman Spiral hypothesis.

The classic example is leavened raisin dough for expansion subsequent to inflation, just apply that to The Pearlman Spiral except the much more dense raisins are there prior to the inflation expansion.

You're still missing the point Roger:

(a) We know that inflation happened before the CMB because the uniformity of the temperature of the CMB is a consequence of inflation.

(b) We know that the CMB was released before stars formed because that radiation prevented matter collapsing into overdense regions through radiation pressure.

(c) If inflation happened before the CMB was released and the CMB was released before star fomation, then it is not possible for star formation to have happened before inflation.

That is simple logic. Of course the conventional model is consistent with that and in fact gives specific mathematically derived values for these eras but even if you disregard that science, you still can't put the cart in front of the horse as well as having the horse in front of the reins and the reins in front of the cart.

Hi George,

your point a appears to be consistent w/ CMB during, not after inflation. please advise your thoughts.

your point b presumes stars were formed after CMB but i do not see how it precludes stars formed prior to inflation. please elaborate.

point c follows from your points a and b that i am questioning.

does anyone know the current temp of the CMB?

does anyone know if we have been measuring, and for how many years, the rate if any at which CMB is cooling?

Hi Roger,

"your point a appears to be consistent w/ CMB during, not after inflation. please advise your thoughts."

Inflation produced very rapid expansion and expanding a gas cools it. To create the matter in the universe required very high temperatures so inflation had to complete, then the universe had to be reheated, thought to be caused by the energy released when inflation stopped, then the resulting plasma had to cool by normal, relatively slow expansion until atoms could form making the universe transparent and allowing the CMB to start travelling freely.

"your point b presumes stars were formed after CMB but i do not see how it precludes stars formed prior to inflation. please elaborate."

When the CMB was released, it stopped holding the gas at a nearly uniform density. Normal matter could then start falling into slightly denser regions of dark matter where it could become dense enough to make the first stars. That process can be calculated from the laws of gravity and would take tens of millions of years. The logic is point (c) as before.

"does anyone know the current temp of the CMB?"

2.725K

"does anyone know if we have been measuring, and for how many years, the rate if any at which CMB is cooling?"

It cools too slowly to be measured over human timescales but we can measure the temperature remotely. The temperature was 5.1K measured 7.2 billion years ago and 9.15K measured 11.1 billion years ago, see the attached links for details.

Also, although I can't find the message now, in one of my replies I gave a figure of 93 billion light years for the distance to the edge of the "observable universe" which I think you questioned. That was just a typo, I gave the diameter instead of the radius as I was trying to be consistent with the diameter at other times. I'll fix the reply when I find it.

http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-measure-the-temperature-of-the-universe-7-2-billion-years-ago/

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2008/18/aa09727-08/aa09727-08.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13914-astronomers-measure-temperature-of-the-early-universe/

Thank You George,

I think i know where the misunderstanding is.

While what you say makes a lot of sense under the standard cosmology model (SCM), if that is the actuality.

under the Pearlman spiral cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis and cosmology model we can take the identical factual evidence and derive very different predictions, calculations and conclusions.

for example:

SCM - Gas expanded before stars formed.

Pearlman Sprial - Stars already existed (in a much denser form) prior to the expansion.

SCM - CMB of today must have been so hot to start that stars could not have survived. this is based on the assumption CR is due to an expanding universe over the past 13B +/-years would have diluted/dissipated the CMB temp.

Pearlman Spiral (which is short for Pearlman SPIRALL ;) - The CR is due to RALL (Redshift Attests to Lagging Light) in SPIRALL so the universe has not been expanding subsequent to inflation, so the universe is best estimated at 5776 years old so the temp today is not much higher that when the universe inflated 5776 years ago.

So the expansion was not the super hot event that would preclude stars from existing in a much more dense form prior to inflation.

There are other attractive forces aside from just gravity, and there are other repulsive forces aside from  those that require too hot a temp to allow for SPI (Stars preceding inflation).

What I am hoping to do is get some peer review on what those forces could have been and could not have been if it turns out SPIRALL is the actuality and not SCM.

best regards,

r

Hi George,

I found your comments on the other thread of interest and perhaps applicable to the Pearlman SPIRALL Hypothesis, do the various forms of Nuclear repulsion intensify the closer the elements are compacted?

you wrote:

'George Dishman · 4.02

"1. Does the equation of state (EOS) of dense matter consider NEUTRON REPULSION?"

Of course, it includes the strong force repulsion, degeneracy pressure and other contributions. The uncertainty is about how "stiff" the repulsion is, in other words how rapidly the repulsion effects increase as the separation is reduced towards the minimum.

"2. Does the equation of state (EOS) of dense matter fit the precise measurements of atomic masses shown below in the "Cradle of the Nuclides"?"

Your plot only goes up to A=300. You would need to extend your calculation to the right to very high values and find the value of M/A as A tends to infinity.

"No maximum mass to a neutron star except the entire universe, because neutron repulsion prevents collapse to a black hole" '

You don't seem to have followed what I said before. Even for an infinitely stiff repulsion, as the star radius increases, the mass will increase as thecube of the radius. The radius within which the object becomes a black hole on the other hand is proportional to the mass so doubling the diameter of the most massive neutron star will result in an object with 8 times the mass, and that would then be a black hole even if neutron repulsion could prevent any more increase in density.

'

RMP: I think i know where the misunderstanding is.

I don't think there's any misunderstanding, we just hold different views.

RMP: While what you say makes a lot of sense under the standard cosmology model (SCM), if that is the actuality. under the Pearlman spiral cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis and cosmology model we can take the identical factual evidence and derive very different predictions, calculations and conclusions.

Perhaps, but there is a vast array of other information available that you should research first.

RMP: SCM - Gas expanded before stars formed.

RMP: Pearlman Sprial - Stars already existed (in a much denser form) prior to the expansion.

Expansion is ongoing but that is a separate issue. Stars give off ultra-violet light which ionises neutral gas into plasma. Neutral hydrogen absorbs a particular frequency called the Lyman-Alpha line but the ionised plasma does not so we can tell when the first stars formed by looking at that ionisation. As a result, we know it was much later than the formation of the gas.

RMP: SCM - CMB of today must have been so hot to start that stars could not have survived. this is based on the assumption CR is due to an expanding universe over the past 13B +/-years would have diluted/dissipated the CMB temp.

No, the CMB from which we get the light was only about 2970K, stars are much hotter. Even the Sun is 5870K and hot blue stars often exceed 20,000K. The absence of stars in the few tens of millions of years after the CMB was released is based on the observation that the gas became neutral hydrogen which would be impossible if there had been any stars then. For more information, look up the "Lyman Alpha Forest" and the "Peterson Trough". Any alternative cosmology you wish to try will have to explain those in detail.

RMP: Pearlman Spiral (which is short for Pearlman SPIRALL ;) - The CR is due to RALL (Redshift Attests to Lagging Light) in SPIRALL

I have no idea what that means. Many people have tried to explain how the frequency of light can be changed without expansion but all have failed, it is harder than you think. In particular, remember that any explanation must also explain why all frequencies of light are shifted by the same ratio for any given source, and sources of light which have well defined durations also last longer in exact proportion to the change of frequency.

Then how do you explain the fact that it was so much denser and hotter that it glowed, something we see as the CMB now? Where did the helium and deuterium in the universe come from? The temperature needed to produce those exceeds 300 million degrees and it had to cool rapidly to avoid destroying the elements as fast as they formed

RMP: so the universe is best estimated at 5776 years old

Don't be silly, dendrochronology alone can date trees to exact years back nearly 14,000 years and of course there has been life on Earth for several billion years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

TY for your informative reply George.

Keep in mind I am not asking you to agree with me, only to help determine if stars preceded inflation as hypothesized by The Pearlman Spiral, how.

If gas and CMB prior to star formation does not negate stars preceded a day 4 inflation epoch as concluded by the pearlman spiral. It could be both the Gas  and CMB are from early day one, or the Stars from day 2, 3 or early day 4..

That would explain how it had the density and energy to create the glow as still by (within 3 days) of the initial singularity.

Also keep in mind incredulity is not a valid scientific proof.

As incredible as a universe 5776 years old may seem to all of us indoctrinated under deep time doctrine.

Using your example of dendrochronology is a well known dispute and the case for no trees over 5776 years is just as viable as any case for over that age.

"Keep in mind I am not asking you to agree with me, only to help determine if stars preceded inflation as hypothesized by The Pearlman Spiral, how."

That's fine Roger, but keep in mind that I am simply passing on the information that science provides to us. The means by which stars produce their output is well understood from experiments in particle colliders which tell us how much energy is produced by fusing hydrogen into helium. The brightness and size of the Sun tell us what the total output is so putting them together means that we can easily calculate the lifetime of star of the Sun's proportions and the answer is about a billion years. We see stars that have already burnt all their fuel and the final stage of their life is to produce what are called "planetary nebulae" so the universe is unquestionably older than that.

If you want to close your eyes to what we we can prove from objective measurement and instead base your beliefs on religious dogma, that's fine. Most serious religions (with some notable exceptions where "the lunatics have taken over the asylum") provide an excellent philosophy for living your life in a compassionate society, and I'm all for that. However, that doesn't mean that your beliefs make any difference to the way the world really is and reconciling the two generally only works if you study the history of the religion and realise that the vast majority of its literature is metaphorical.

The inflationary phase produced temperatures so high that not even the protons and neutrons that make up matter could have existed. That and its rapid subsequent cooling are essential in order to explain the existence of the elements we observe in the oldest astronomical material.

The simple fact is that inflation itself is a hypothesis which has been inferred in order to explain certain observations and the only way it can explain themis if it happened before the elements formed and millions of years before stars could exist. In terms of science, your hypothesis that stars preceded inflation is therefore physically impossible but science should never be seen as a conflict with religious beliefs, only that their metaphorical presentation should not be taken literally.

"Using your example of dendrochronology is a well known dispute and the case for no trees over 5776 years is just as viable as any case for over that age."

I can as easily believe that the universe is 63 years old. I've been told by my parents that they and others were alive before me but "I think therefore I am" so I can only be (fairly) sure that the universe has existed since I was born but it was created fully formed at that moment (including my parents with their false memories of their prior existence). Anything before that is heresay, and you cannot prove otherwise.

On the other hand, if you discard that unprovable hypothesis and accept that the universe is as we measure it to be, then the universe is 13.8 billion years old and the first stars formed after between 32 and 140 million years after the CMB was released. I can't prove the light we observe wasn't created to trick us, already in flight, just 5776 years ago and neither can you prove the universe (including you) wasn't created solely for my benefit at the moment of my own "birth". That is solipsism in it's purest form, but I don't see any value in such a belief, and your hypothesis is no different, just a few years earlier.

Hi George,

TY for taking the time to respond.

the bottom line appears to be you can not, or will not, think of a way that it could have happened. 

I am going to edit the question like this and i hope you take another crack at it.

Under what conditions could stars have preceded a day four cosmic inflation?

these are the givens:

The actuality is the same as it is today, so directly observed facts are as they are, though our interpretation of them may differ than the current conventional explanations.

The universe had a beginning, with all matter/energy and the start of time coming into existence as an initial singularity.

The Earth/Sun Ecliptic is the approximate center of not just the 'observable universe.'

but the entire universe is 'observable', therefore we are by the center of the entire universe. As explained and illustrated in The Pearlman SPIRALL. 

Cosmic Inflation was on day four where the universe expanded up to about 13 Billion light years in each direction within one day 5,776 years ago.

The cosmological redshift is not due to an expanding universe but explained by The Pearlman SPIRALL so we are in a loitering (somewhat static universe).

So what are the best ways to get from the initial singularity early day one, to proto star formation prior to cosmic inflation sometime on day four?

I assume the stars were much more dense.

Keep in mind heat, time and pressure are three variables in stellar formation just as they are in rock formation so increase the heat and or pressure to reduce the time required. 

All the energy/matter is close at hand.

It is OK to manipulate the laws of nature as necessary to get the job done.

Of special interest is the source of CMB and how it relates to Stellar formation and Inflation.

Thank you in advance for your various solutions..

"It is OK to manipulate the laws of nature as necessary to get the job done."

No it isn't, that's your problem. You appear to trying to invent a hypothesis that matches some people's interpretation of the Bible. If so, you probably believe that there is a God and that he defined the laws by which the universe operates, and did so in a manner that led to our existence. If you then deny those and invent your own false laws, you are falsifying your own God. Is that what you want? What you will end up with is nothing but a fantasy world unrelated to reality. You can do that yourself without my help of course.

The facts are simple: the CMB is like the light we see from the Sun, the source material was hot gas of similar composition. When we look at the Sun, we don't the hot core, we only see a few kilometres into the surface because the rest is opaque. The same is true of the CMB, at earlier times, the gas was denser and opaque. What we see after that is atoms of hydrogen. We know that because a particular atomic line in the spectrum called the "Lyman Alpha" line absorbed UV light. The light from the first stars converted the gas back to plasma making it transparent at the Lyman Alpha frequency.

The redshift of the CMB is 1090, that of the re-ionization around 11 and the first stars at about 25 so there is no doubt whatsoever what the sequence was. There was a clear period of many millions of years after the release of the CMB before the first stars formed out of the cold gas due to gravity.

You said (slightly rearranged):

"I am going to edit the question like this and i hope you take another crack at it.

Under what conditions could stars have preceded a day four cosmic inflation?

these are the givens:

The actuality is the same as it is today, so directly observed facts are as they are, .."

the bottom line appears to be you can not, or will not, think of a way that it could have happened."

The bottom line is that if you say "directly observed facts are as they are" then it is a fact that we see observe the Gunn-Peterson Trough, which is a spectral feature that only occurs of hydrogen has formed atoms and we see that ending as stars ionised the gas. We directly observe the redshifts at which those eras occurred and that means we know for a fact that there was a long period after the CMB was released when there were no stars.

In other words, I know what you are asking and I have thought carefully about it and I can say that direct observation certainly rules out your hypothesis. That may not be the answer you would like but it reflects the facts. It is up to you now to revise your hypothesis to cope with reality, all I can do is provide you with the most accurate information I have and inform you of the technical terms that you can research further.

TY George,

so the CMB is from a gas that was ionized by starlight.

CMB is redshifted (as are distant stars starting 5k to 6k LY distance from the Earth orbital).

this CMB redshift could be for the same reason that The Pearlman Spiral cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis gives for CR.

forget about the disputed time scales and order of formation for this exercise.

assume the CR is due to stars preceded inflation and the CR is due to lagging light as the universe expanded at speeds vastly greater than the speed of light during cosmic inflation.

also  we are the approximate center of the universe from which the universe expanded out from. (see The Pearlman Spiral)

The gas which everyone agrees (who holds by an initial singularity (as does the current standard model) was in one form or another in the initial singularity.  (as was everything else).

So if pre cosmic inflation the stars were so dense (per the Pearlman Spiral they were extremely dense) that their light could not yet escape (think black hole hypothesis where light can not escape) and the gas expanded along with cosmic inflation, as the stars also expanded their light escaping for the first time caused the CMB related gas to ionize, and because both were moving away from us in every direction they were both red-shifted.

RMP: so the CMB is from a gas that was ionized by starlight.

Yes and no:

A) The CMB came from hot plasma, just like that at the visible surface of the Sun.

B) That plasma cooled and became cold gas which no longer glowed but was transparent below the Lyman Alpha line (UV) so the light from the earlier hot phase can still be seen.

C) The cold gas could start to form stars.

D) The first stars ionised the gas but it was much less dense than earlier due to the expansion of the universe in the intervening time so it remained transparent

E) The Lyman Alpha line is due to cold atoms, the ionised hydrogen no longer absorbed it so ionisation meant the universe became transparent to UV as well.

RMP: CMB is redshifted (as are distant stars starting 5k to 6k LY distance from the Earth orbital).

The CMB is redshifted by a factor of 1090. Stars within our galaxy are not subject to cosmological redshift because they are bound to the galaxy. The Andromeda galaxy is 3 million light years away and is sufficiently close that it and the Milky Way will merge in a few billion years so it has a blueshift due to Doppler. We only see cosmological redshift becoming dominant over much larger distances.

RMP: this CMB redshift could be for the same reason that The Pearlman Spiral cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis gives for CR.

The redshift of the CMB is certainly CR. I have no idea what explanation you give for it.

RMP: forget about the disputed time scales and order of formation for this exercise.

I'm not going to waste my time forgetting reality and discussing some nonsensical fantasy. I'll happily tell you what is observed and what it means so that you can develop your understanding of reality.

RMP: assume the CR is due to stars preceded inflation

That is impossible, the matter from which the stars are made did not exist prior to inflation. Subsequent to that, a quark-gluon plasma existed for a short time similar to what is generated and examined in the LHC, then a dynamic mix of hadrons that we see produced from those experiments, then a plasma of nuclei and electrons formed giving us the observed hydrogen/helium mix, then the CMB was released as the plasma combined into atomic gas, then the gas could form denser clouds (aided by concentrations of dark matter) and only then could the colld gas start to form the first stars. That is the sequence of events, inflation cannot have happened any later and the stars couldn't form any earlier.

RMP: The gas which everyone agrees (who holds by an initial singularity (as does the current standard model) was in one form or another in the initial singularity. (as was everything else).

Nobody imagines that Roger. What most people think is that energy that subsequently formed the matter was created by the energy released when the period of inflation stopped and that would have been a quark-gluon plasma.

RMP: .. think black hole hypothesis where light can not escape ..

Black holes are dense objects in near-vacuum surroundings. The early universe was uniformly dense everywhere so the black hole model is not applicable.

Roger, you are just repeating statements that blatently contradict what is seen through telescopes not just in timescales but in the simple logical sequence. The Gunn-Peterson Trough is a well known observational feature which guarantees that there must have been a long period with no stars whatsoever after the CMB was released. I don't see what you hope to achieve by endlessly going over the same ground without adapting your ideas to fit those facts.

TY for the informative reply on the current conventional understanding George.

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Madau6/Madau1_3.html

it looks like there is an assumption of an expanding universe built into much of the current standard hypothesis.

So if the universe is not expanding different conclusions would be in order for the same factual observations.

Aside from learning about the current conventional understanding so that i can make a fair comparison/evaluation with alternate hypotheses, I also want to have the best hypothesis (That is the best fit with the factual natural observations ) if the reality is The Pearlman Spiral hypothesis where the universe is not expanding but loitering/ somewhat static, and the stars formed prior to cosmic inflation.

best, r

RMP: it looks like there is an assumption of an expanding universe built into much of the current standard hypothesis.

Of course, there is no possibility that it is not currently expanding at present.

RMP: So if the universe is not expanding different conclusions would be in order for the same factual observations.

Yes and no. Even if you question expansion, the key fact in this case is the spectra of quasars which show the Gunn-Peterson Trough, and that means that non-ionised gas existed at that time and the the universe expanded by several hundred times between the CMB and that era.

RMP: and the stars formed prior to cosmic inflation.

That is obviously impossible as I have said many times.

Hi George, 

I am sure you are aware there are other models by credentialed scientists  that have a hypothesis with a somewhat static universe. So I do not think one can invoke science which does not deal in absolutes to preclude the Pearlman Spiral CR hypothesis/ cosmology model just because it concludes a loitering universe.

So the question would be if anyone can reconcile it with:

'the spectra of quasars which show the Gunn-Peterson Trough, and that means that non-ionized gas existed at that time and the the universe expanded by several hundred times between the CMB and that era.'

keep in mind w/ The Pearlman Spiral' some of the Gas may have been ionized during the first part of the Cosmic Inflation (CI)  for CMB than several hundred times more expansion prior to the GPT  as during CI the universe expanded more than hundreds of times.

Hi Roger,

RMP: I am sure you are aware there are other models by credentialed scientists that have a hypothesis with a somewhat static universe.

Not these days. The original static universe was discarded long ago, it is unstable and would collapse in too short a time. A quasi-static model to replace it was proposed by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in 1948. That was for an infinitely old universe which is always expanding but had an added feature that new matter was created at just the right rate to maintain a constant density forever. That too was so badly out of step with observation that it was soon abandoned and the existence of the CMB which cannot be explained in a steady-state universe just added another nail in its coffin. Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar tried to salvage a version by accepting the big bang as far back as some quite early time and suggesting that the universe "bounced" in the past at some maximum density prior to which it was contracting. In other words, other than at very early times, it is the same as the conventional model. They replaced Hoyle's "creation field" with something similar to conventional "dark energy" so now it barely differs from the conventional model except in some academic details. That's logical since the observational evidence for conditions today leaves very little room for adjustment.

RMP: So I do not think one can invoke science which does not deal in absolutes to preclude the Pearlman Spiral CR hypothesis/ cosmology model just because it concludes a loitering universe.

Note that none of the static models included a loitering phase as the observations precluded it. Note also, while we talked about a loitering phase (which would have ended in the far past), you haven't presented any mathematical model that "concludes a loitering universe", in fact you have not presented any alternative model at all.

RMP: keep in mind w/ The Pearlman Spiral' some of the Gas may have been ionized during the first part of the Cosmic Inflation (CI).

No, it goes the wrong way. Inflation reduces the temperature just as expansion cools the gas in your fridge but by a much larger factor, see below. Ionisation needs a source of ultra-violet photons with energy significantly greater than the Lyman alpha.

Keep in mind also that you still have the sequence wrong. Inflation had to occur long before any gas existed. It was proposed to fit certain observations and only fits them if it happened prior to the generation of the matter in the universe. The helium, deuterium and lithium we see needed the whole universe to be filled uniformly with plasma at a temperature around one billion degrees to be formed. That temperature also had to fall to around 300 million degrees in half an hour due to expansion. Subsequent to that, the matter had to expand and cool to a much lower temperature and density before nuclei could form, let alone atoms. The CMB is now at a temperature of 2.725K so that's a slow expansion factor of 100,000,000 and in keeping with the current model.

RMP: ... for CMB than several hundred times more expansion prior to the GPT as during CI the universe expanded more than hundreds of times.

I don't think you appreciate how much the volume increased during inflation, it was a factor of around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in size and the cube of that in volume, all done in a tiny fraction of a second. It's a very specific solution to a specific set of problems so you can't just toss it in wherever you like, the consequences would not fit the observations.

TY for the feedback George,

OP question edited to:

as edited Dec 4: How could CMB have formed If stellar formation was prior to cosmic inflation, and the universe is static and 6k years old? Edit

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB)

Assume stars formed prior to the inflation epoch as hypothesized in the Pearlman Spiral cosmological redshift hypothesis.. Prior to that the stars being so dense, their light could not escape.

Under what conditions could stars have formed during that span prior to cosmic inflation?

How would the CMB have formed?

Assume cosmological redshift does not mean the universe is expanding, as explained by The Pearlman SPIRALL so we are in a somewhat static 5,776 year old universe.

Thank you in advance for any and all proposed solutions you can think of. r

What conditions were required for Stellar formation pre inflation epoch (as w/ the Pearlman Spiral cosmological redshift hypothesis) ? 

I am studying up on CMB and Inflation and hoping to get a more knowledgeable scientist such as yourself to help figure what the conditions would have had to have been for the current observations to fit.

The loitering (somewhat static) phase under the pearlman spiral just had to last for 5776 years to date starting at the end of the inflation epoch..

If the gas that is hypothesized under the current understanding to have resulted in the current CMB observations could not have existed prior to or during the inflation epoch,

but Plasma did?

and if all matter started at the initial singularity, and the proto stars were so dense before the inflation epoch that they did not even give off light, until during the inflation epoch during the inflation epoch,

what could have been the cause of the CMB observations we have now assuming the inflation epoch was 5776 years ago? 

could it have been some kind of cold fusion rather than the super hot one hypothesized?

it seems under the Spiral less matter/energy is required, less processes are required, less time is required, to get from the initial singularity to what is now.

per the P. SPIRALL CR. hypothesis that is 

An Earth ecliptic universe w/ a radius up to 13B LY

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/25/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-3/

the electronic universe hypothesis makes some interesting observations about .. plasma - gas - .. issues

Roger, you should be aware that the "electric universe" is almost entirely crackpot nonsense, don't consider to be part of the current scientific understanding. There is more to learn about how plasma effects contribute in some specific areas of cosmology but the "thunderbolts" site will be far more misleading than useful.

RMP: I am studying up on CMB and Inflation.

Studying the subjects is always useful (but make sure your sources are reputable). However it might be better if you started by studying how stars form and burn. Here's a simple calculation:

If you hold out your hand in the sunlight, you can feel the heat it delivers. The total power is around 1367W averaged over the year at the top of the atmosphere. The Sun is 149.6 million km away so multiplying by the surface of a sphere of that radius, it emits roughly 3.8*10^26W continuously. From E=mc^2, that is the conversion of 4.3 million tonnes of mass per second. That comes from changing hydrogen into helium with an efficiency around 0.7% so 6.11*10^11kg (611 million tonnes) of hydrogen is changed into 607 million tonnes of helium every second. The Sun has a total mass of 2*10^30kg of which 10% is hydrogen in the core where it can be fused, so divide the total available hydrogen by the rate at which it is used and you find that a star like the Sun has a total lifetime of roughly 10 billion years. That's a very crude figure, a more thorough calculation gives closer to 7 billion years.

Now bear in mind that, when you held out your hand, it is made of many elements, not just hydrogen. None of those could have formed in the early universe (and when we look at clouds of original material, it confirms the mix of 76% hydrogen, 24% helium and less than 0.01% lithium. All the atoms in your hand other than hydrogen had to be created either inside a star during normal burning or during a supernova, they could only be released to become part of you when the star burned out and through its 'ashes' out into space. More masive stars burn somewhat faster but even the largest still take millions of years to get through their mass. Our star is one of what is called "Population I", these are stars in the galactic disk with relatively high heavy element content ("metallicity"). Those elements were produced by the demise of Population II stars which are much older and are found main in the core of the galaxy. They have much less metal content but still more than in the primordial mix so were formed from material which already held the remains of the very first stars. These are called Population III but only unusually small ones could be found still existing, it will take the next generation James Webb Telescope to see them. To summarise, there must have been at least two generations of stars that formed, burned out and exploded (or threw off a planetary nebula) before our Sun started to form from the gas that already contained the waste products of those earlier stars.

P.s. I've also added a link to a description of the end of life of main sequence stars which should interest you. Planetary nebulae are some of the most beautiful objects in nature.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s9.htm

https://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/astronomy_and_space/astronomy/stellar-evolution-5-of-6-end-of-life-cycle-for-low-mass-stars

TY George,

while i do not ascribe to a lot of the standard electric universe narrative i do think possible electro magnetic radiation could have had a larger role in stellar formation than gravity. 

The day one separation of light from the darkness (in the initial singularity or the plazma?) is a reference to the electromagnetic radiation according to at least one PHD i know.

also i hold all of creation (the physical universe) was made in 'full stature' over the course of week one. So while Adam the first person was 1 day old he was like a 20 year old of today. The trees in the Garden of Eden were ready to eat from but would appear to an observer who has only current growth rates as a reference point as much older than a few days old.

So while i understand it is beyond our current reference points, my question is if the stars did preceded inflation, how could that have been done.

If stars already existed prior to the inflation epoch some/all of the elements thought not to exist yet must have existed or come into existence as part of the inflation epoch.

One way to consider the various options is to imagine yourself as the designer and creator.

Assume the laws of nature are part of the design with your retaining a built in ability to override the same at least for week one.

If we did not know any better, who would have guessed a woman is born with all her eggs? so just because it appears incredulous to us and we can not yet recreate and experiment, how is it not possible the proto stars were not already in dense form by the end of day one? or by the start of day 4?

if we are going by observational science the Pearlman Spiral explains why CR observations indicate only about 5776 years have elapsed since the end of the inflation epoch.

RMP: question is if the stars did preceded inflation, how could that have been done.

Roger, we have been over this many times but it seems I have to repeat it. "Inflation" is a technical term for a proposed process which explains the observed geometrical flatness of space and uniform temperature of the CMB. As such it could only have preceeded the release of the CMB. In fact it must also have preceeded nucleogenesis, the creation helium, deuterium and lithium that we see in primordial gas. Stars cannot form in the medium that produced the CMB and had to form tens of millions of years later (simply by calculating the time it takes to fall in a gravitational field), they take a few millions (massive Pop. III) to tens of billions (sub-solar Pop. I) of years to burn and ours is a third generation star contaminated with the explosion products of two earlier generations.

You have not said what your ideas are for explaining redshift but many people have tried and while most are partially successful, there is always some observation that falsifies their hypothesis. However, that is irrelevant, the simple calculation I gave you for stellar lifetimes means that timescales less than several billion years are out of the question and it is not connected to redshift in any way.

I realise you will totally ignore the realities of scientific knowledge but as I said some time ago, the only way to reconcile your beliefs with what is observed is to assume that everything we see was, as you said, "made in 'full stature' " at some instant and that could equally well be the moment of my birth, you cannot prove otherwise. The laws of the universe in that case would always have been what they are today with no need to override them, the current universe would have been set in motion simply by defining in perfect detail what the initial conditions were. The only problem that view gives you is that it is impossible to say when that happened since every piece of evidence is then consistent with the current standard scientific explanation.

RMP: If we did not know any better, who would have guessed a woman is born with all her eggs?

Anyone who looked closely at an aphid. The ignorance of the incurious is hardly a basis for a religion. What has that got to do with the lifetime of stars?

RMP: how is it not possible the proto stars were not already in dense form by the end of day one? or by the start of day 4?

It is not possible because a proto-star would have 76% hydrogen in its core. Our Sun has less than half of that and, at the rate it is being used, it would take over 4 billion years to use up that amount. You could instead have to claim that the Sun was "made in 'full stature' " just a few thousand years ago if you like but it had to be made with the all elements heavier than helium already in it at that point (they can't be made in the Sun), and with much less hydrogen and far more helium in the core than it would have had as a proto-star.

At the end of the day, you proposal will always suffer from the philosophical objection known as "Russell's Teapot".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Hi George, you say above 'Stars cannot form in the medium that produced the CMB' - so perhaps they formed prior.

the best science has uses the maximum available context.

to ignore the first cause of the initial singularity and all the laws of nature lacks context.

once one takes into account the first cause, the Stars formed in full stature prior to CMB is not a problem.

what if the proto stars are already in the proto matter or plasma but their light can not yet escape so as the universe inflates out during the inflation epoch the plasma/rapidly cools to the gas that the light now starting to emit from the stars as they start to emit light as the universe expands at speeds vastly greater than the speed of light forming the CMB? 

deep time, stellar formation in deep space as per the standard model, CMB reaching us now being from light that originated 13B LY away 13 B years ago are just hypothesis.

a recent complex creation with the CMB originating from 5,776 LY away 5,776 years ago , that relies on the same factual observations, and is a higher probability explanation of same.

I am not sure how a scientist can preclude a hypothesis they have not learnt yet. To the extent valid The Pearlman Spiral would render scientifically invalid (falsify) all deep time dependent scientific hypotheses.

Hi Roger,

RMP: you say above 'Stars cannot form in the medium that produced the CMB' - so perhaps they formed prior.

Think about a star, it is a dense ball of gas in the very thin "vacuum  of space" surrounding it. The ratio of those densities is a very large number. On the other hand, we have seen directly by the COBE, WMAP and Planck probes and many other observations that the variation in the CMB is only about 10 parts per million, that is the density varies from0.99999 to 1.00001 versus a mean of 1. Dense regions produce greater gravity, so more material falls in thereby increasing their density. That means there were no stars during or prior to the CMB and for a long time thereafter.

RMP: the best science has uses the maximum available context. to ignore the first cause of the initial singularity and all the laws of nature lacks context.

Indeed, but the science I am explaining to you is quite simple and yet you are simply ignoring any and all context that doesn't suit you. Our Sun contains metals (any element heavier than helium in the language of astronomers) at a level consistent with it being a third generation star which formed from a nebula that included the debris of earlier supernovae. The simple calculation I showed you means those stars must have burned for millions to billions of years. The arithmetic wasn't hard yet you totally ignored those basic facts.

RMP: once one takes into account the first cause, the Stars formed in full stature prior to CMB is not a problem.

"First cause" generated a quark-gluon soup that didn't even contain neutrons, no matter existed. The universe had to expand and cool for a few seconds to reach the temperature where the first matter could form and radiation pressure within that precluded the formation of any structure. When you take the context of even basic science into account, the first star in our observable universe would not have formed prior to 32 million years later. In addition, the Planck telescope has measured the ionisation of the cold, neutral gas that created the Gunn-Peterson Trough and has measured it as peaking at a redshift of 11 compared to around 25 for the first star and 1089 for the CMB. Roger, direct observation says you are wrong, this is not a hypothesis.

RMP: what if the proto stars are already in the proto matter or plasma

The context of basic science says they could not exist in that enivironment and direct observation confirms that, the CMB is many orders of magnitude too uniform for any large structures to have existed in it.

RMP: but their light can not yet escape so as the universe inflates out during the inflation epoch

If it existed at all, the inflationary epoch was less than a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second long and was the period you call "first cause", nothing preceeded it.

RMP: the plasma/rapidly cools to the gas that the light now starting to emit from the stars as they start to emit light as the universe expands at speeds vastly greater than the speed of light forming the CMB?

Light from the first stars ionised the neutral gas therefore the gas could not ever have been neutral unless there was a period when the universe was perfectly transparent at frequencies below the Lyman alpha line (so that we can still see the CMB) and there were no stars at all. That period lasted tens of millions of years both as predicted and as observed.

RMP: as per the standard model, CMB reaching us now being from light that originated 13B LY away 13 B years ago are just hypothesis.

The CMB was formed as pale yellow light 41 million light years away, however that distance has expanded by a factor of 1090 since then as have the distances, so the material that emitted it is now 46 billion light years away. That is not a hypothesis, it is the result of calculations using the Friedmann equations applied to direct observations and is accurate to within a few percent. That is the "scientific context" which you are ignoring.

RMP: a recent complex creation with the CMB originating from 5,776 LY away 5,776 years ago , that relies on the same factual observations, and is a higher probability explanation of same.

It is utterly nonsensical, as I have explained over and over again, our Sun is third generation and stars burn for millions or billions of years.

RMP: I am not sure how a scientist can preclude a hypothesis they have not learnt yet.

That is easy, scientists learn the immutable laws by which creation operates, regardles of how or by whome those were put in place. Then they apply those laws to what is directly observed to create a model, and then the test the predictions of that model with every method available. While there remsins room for new hypotheses within the bounds of the observations, as time goes on that parameter space is continually being constrained.

Inflation is such a hypothesis, still being investigated and evaluated, but that hypothesis is specifically about something that happened in the first 10^(-23) seconds. If the hypothesis is wrong, you cannot just move it to a different era since its effects would no longer correspond to the observations it seeks to explain, the question instead would be what alternative physical process might have happened during the first 10^(-23) seconds that could explain what we observe.

RMP: To the extent valid The Pearlman Spiral would render scientifically invalid (falsify) all deep time dependent scientific hypotheses.

No, an alternative hypothesis for cosmological redshift would have absolutely no impact on the vast majority of the evidence. The fuel burning rate of stars for example  would be unaffected. If your hypothesis produces a significantly shorter timescale than science currently gives, then it is falsified by being inconsistent with the lifetime of stars alone, and there are a vast range of other timescales which are consistent with the modern view of course.

I am thinking all the processes and ratios the standard model attributes to:

the initial singularity,

the initial big bang expansion,

CMB in a sphere of 41 M radius,

the inflation epoch to 13B radius within one day,

stellar formation via gravity relatively very early in the history of the universe.

the resumption of cosmic expansion to 45B+ radius over 13 B years

that result in the factual observations we can observe today,

can be arrived at over less time, using less energy, using fewer processes,

by the initial singularity,

an initial expansion

CMB in a sphere about 1 LY in radius.

stellar formation using electromagnetic radiation and gravity 

cosmic inflation to 13B radius 

no subsequent expansion.

Hi Roger,

Let's correct some details on your understanding of the standard model:

RMP: I am thinking all the processes and ratios the standard

model attributes to: the initial singularity,

"Singularity" means a region where our maths reaches a limitation, it isn't a physical state so we don't attribute anything to that. Generally we work backwards from what we can see in the present to calculate conditions in the past. The singularity is as far as we can take that calculation.

Next may have been inflation which is the state the universe was in at the first instant we can calculate. Our observable portion of the much larger universe was left about 4cm across (often described as "the size of a grapefruit") when it stopped. Quantum effects during inflation left an imprint on the CMB called the Harrison-Zel'dovich Spectrum which we can observe.

RMP: the initial big bang expansion,

Yes, that is the expansion which has been continuous from the end of inflation and continues to the present but at a much lower rate than during the initial inflation phase.

RMP: CMB in a sphere of 41 M radius,

Right. The CMB was emitted everywhere, currently we see that part which was emitted at that distance.

RMP: the inflation epoch to 13B radius within one day,

No, inflation is our best model for the initial state.

RMP: stellar formation via gravity relatively very early in the history of the universe.

Right.

RMP: the resumption of cosmic expansion to 45B+ radius over 13 B years

Almost, it never stopped. Other than the effect of dark energy, the Hubble Constant is inversely proportional to the age of the universe so when it was half as old, the expansion was at double the rate.

RMP: CMB in a sphere about 1 LY in radius.

That is quarter of the distance to the nearest star. To produce the measured black body spectrum, it has to be perfectly opaque so no stars would be visible.

RMP: stellar formation using electromagnetic radiation and gravity

Yes, that is the conventional model but you can't form a star in less than several million years. They burn for millions to billions of years and ours is third generation.

RMP: cosmic inflation to 13B radius

No, inflation is our description of the initial state, you have it in the wrong era.

RMP: no subsequent expansion.

Expansion is observed today and is accelerating.

I'm sorry to say it but your suggestions are nonsensical, they can't explain even the most basic observations such as the fact that we can see stars and include all the same processes as the standard model, just in the wrong order and with timescales that are drastically wrong. You also need some additional process to explain cosmological redshift on top of everything else.

Regarding the CMB, I think it might help if you looked through the linked atlas to see where our Solar System lies within the galaxy.

At the larger scales, you can see how the Milky Way is located relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, our local group and the Virgo Cluster. To see the bigger picture and appreciate the scale of our cosmological neighbourhood, there is an excellent video based on large scale surveys in the second link. The French accent of the narrator is a bit difficult but you can relate the images to the largest scales in the atlas.

The CMB comes from far beyond everything in the video because we can see the influence of far more distant galaxies on it through the Sachs–Wolfe effect.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/

http://irfu.cea.fr/cosmography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect

It looks like if an alternate hypothesis can explain the black body spectrum of CMB it could be the result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies.

while inflation theory and big bang theory standard chronologies do not align, and the standard inflation model occurs too fast to account for the black body spectrum, all can be reconciled using the Pearlman SPIRALL where stars preceded inflation and inflation took up to a day, with a expansion of X light years prior to stellar formation and prior to inflation up to 13 B LY radius with no subsequent expansion.

CMB wiki =

'The interpretation of the cosmic microwave background was a controversial issue in the 1960s with some proponents of the steady state theory arguing that the microwave background was the result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies.[30] Using this model, and based on the study of narrow absorption line features in the spectra of stars, the astronomer Andrew McKellar wrote in 1941: "It can be calculated that the 'rotational temperature' of interstellar space is 2 K."[31] However, during the 1970s the consensus was established that the cosmic microwave background is a remnant of the big bang. This was largely because new measurements at a range of frequencies showed that the spectrum was a thermal, black body spectrum, a result that the steady state model was unable to reproduce.[32] '

30 Narlikar, J. V.; Wickramasinghe, N. C. (1967). "Microwave Background in a Steady State Universe". Nature 216 (5110): 43–44. Bibcode:1967Natur.216...43N.doi:10.1038/216043a0.

31 ^ Jump up to:a b McKellar, A.; Kan-Mitchell, June; Conti, Peter S. (1941). "Molecular Lines from the Lowest States of Diatomic Molecules Composed of Atoms Probably Present in Interstellar Space". Publications of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory (Victoria, BC) 7 (6): 251–272.

Jump up32 ^ Peebles, P. J. E.; et al. (1991). "The case for the relativistic hot big bang cosmology".Nature 352 (6338): 769–776. Bibcode:1991Natur.352..769P. doi:10.1038/352769a0.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

'All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. '

'

'.. in inflationary cosmology, the traditional Big Bang did not occur.'

'According to the simplest inflationary models, inflation ended at a temperature corresponding to roughly 10−32 second after the Big Bang. As explained above, this does not imply that the inflationary era lasted less than 10−32 second. In fact, in order to explain the observed homogeneity of the universe, the duration must be longer than 10−32 second...'

RMP: It looks like if an alternate hypothesis can explain the black body spectrum of CMB it could be the result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies.

No, galaxies have a mix of stars at various temperatures, infra-red from dust and higher frequencies from other mechanisms so gives a much wider spectrum, there is no possibility of that looking like a single pure temperature. Varying redshift would also apply to galaxies at different distances so the resulting spectrum would be a horizontal line. To create the obseved Planck curve, you need a perfectly opaque source at a temperature uniform to about 10 parts per million over the whole sky and at a uniform distance from us, beyond the most distant galaxies.

RMP: .. where stars preceded inflation ..

As we have been over and over again Roger, that is impossible, inflation is the initial state. It had to happen before the CMB was released and the CMB had to happen tens of millions of years before it became possible for the first stars to form. No matter how often you repeat this, it won't stop being impossible. See the bottom of this post for more on this.

Wikipedia: "This was largely because new measurements at a range of frequencies showed that the spectrum was a thermal, black body spectrum, a result that the steady state model was unable to reproduce."

That is exactly what I have been saying, the measurements mentioned were primarily from COBE. These aren't my own ideas, what I am passing on is just what has been discovered with modern observatories.

RMP: Andrew McKellar wrote in 1941 ...

Our knowledge has come a long way since then.

RMP: "Narlikar, J. V.; Wickramasinghe"

Professor Ned Wright (one of the COBE team) deals with Narlikar's publications in the linked page. Narlikar has contradicted himself in his own papers and publishes claims that are already known to be wrong by measurement.

RMP: "Molecular Lines from the Lowest States of Diatomic Molecules Composed of Atoms Probably Present in Interstellar Space"

Many molecules have been found in space, about 120 different compounds at the last count. However, the CMB is a perfect black body with no spectral lines. That is one of the reasons why we know such alternative ideas cannot work.

RMP: '.. in inflationary cosmology, the traditional Big Bang did not occur.

RMP: 'According to the simplest inflationary models, inflation ended at a temperature corresponding to roughly 10−32 second after the Big Bang. As explained above, this does not imply that the inflationary era lasted less than 10−32 second. In fact, in order to explain the observed homogeneity of the universe, the duration must be longer than 10−32 second...'

Exactly, inflation either replaces the big bang and extends to the infinite past in a permanent inflationary state or it extends back to the creation of the universe if that was a unique event. We can't calculate which of those is true but in both versions the universe did not exist in any other state prior to inflation. Many other changes occurred after inflation before matter could form.

RMP: ".. all can be reconciled using the Pearlman SPIRALL where stars preceded inflation and inflation took up to a day, with a expansion of X light years prior to stellar formation and prior to inflation up to 13 B LY radius with no subsequent expansion."

You keep saying that but so far you have not been able to give a single explanation for any of the observations we have discussed, you just repeat these baseless statements that contradict what is directly observed.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

TY for your patience George,

you conclude: 'You keep saying that but so far you have not been able to give a single explanation for any of the observations we have discussed, you just repeat these baseless statements that contradict what is directly observed.'

to which i respond - just because we have not yet figured out the how stars formed prior to an inflation of the universe and how that is consistent with the known black body CMB spectrum does not mean there is no possible solution.

we can agree to disagree if and until we, or someone else, can solve.

best, r

I am thinking the solution will be consistent with:

• an initial singularity
• an initial expansion.
• stellar formation into some of very concentrated steady state before the end of day one.
• a day two separation of inner space and outer space with us in the approximate center.
• a day four inflation up to 13B radius 5,776 years ago with no subsequent expansion.

which is consistent with The Pearlman SPIRAL.

RMP: to which i respond - just because we have not yet figured out the how stars formed prior to an inflation of the universe and how that is consistent with the known black body CMB spectrum does not mean there is no possible solution.

The attached link is a telescope image of clumps of cold gas called "Bok Globules". These are in the process of falling into smaller, more dense clouds and will eventually become stars. That is how stars form, from thin gas in vacuum at a temperature less than liquid nitrogen. The CMB on the other hand was emitted from material that filled the whole universe with no gaps, had the consistency similar to the material just under the surface of the Sun and a temperature only slightly lower. Your suggestion that Bok Globules could form in an environment like the inside of the Sun is not possible or even sensible.

"Inflation" is a name given to one possible initial state of the universe. Since nothing can precede an initial state, it does indeed mean there is "no possible solution" to that particular aspect. Again you have repeated the same error inyour list, "inflation" is another name for your bullet point "an initial expansion".

Science is respected because it is always neutral to the consequences of observations, we see what is out there and construct our ideas and mathematical representation of nature's laws accordingly. Those laws do mean that what you suggest is impossible whether that complies with your beliefs or not, and I have spent quite a lot of time explaining why in language that I intended would be at a level you could understand without getting into complex mathematics. While I've kept the presentation simple, that doesn't mean it isn't robust, it is backed by decades of study and direct observation so you will find that, while details are still being refined, the bigger picture is beyond doubt.

I'm sorry to dissapoint you but there is no disagreement about which we can agree, you have not offerred any alternative to the conventional model. Our Sun has been burning at its present size for 4.5 billion years and it is third generation. Your own hands as you type your replies are made of material formed in supernovae that was blasted into the nebula from which the Sun formed.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Bok_globules_in_IC2944.jpg

I think there are underlying assumptions that over the past decades has lead to the current conventional view boxing itself in, when the solution lies outside the box.

I think the Pealman SPIRAL is the solution, based on the laws of probability and the natural observations of cosmological redshift, but i need help from knowledgeable scientists such as yourself on how the processes involved could have happened to be consistent with all the current factual observations, such as the black body distribution.

The way science works is to start by allowing every possible solution and then create a box derived only from experiment and observation that, hopefully, eventually contains only one solution. The process is driven by the method called 'falsification' of possibilities that do not match the real world. If your ideas can cope with what is observed, and clearly that requires stars forming some tens of million of years after the release of the CMB, then they can live to be tested another day. If not, the rules of science require that you discard or modify them. Bok Modules obviously could not exist in the environment that created the CMB and at earlier times the temperature and density were even higher.

RMP: i need help from knowledgeable scientists such as yourself on how the processes involved could have happened to be consistent with all the current factual observations, such as the black body distribution.

That is certainly the right attitude to take. Constantly narrowing the range of solutions that match what is seen is what professional cosmologists have been doing for nearly a century, though really it is the advent of modern technology and especially space-based observatories, that has created the amazing advances of the last three decades. If you study the current solutions, you can see how our ideas have been shaped by those measurements and how the range of possibilities is steadily being reduced.

Rather than throwing everything away and starting again which means understanding all the observations before you begin, I would advise taking the concordance model and looking at just one aspect at a time to see how it was derived and by how much you might change it, that will make the task more tractable. I wish you good luck with your studies.

Merry Christmas.

George

here is an interesting publication by Dr. Thierry De Mees that i think sheds light on stellar formation issues for The Peaslman SPIRAL model.

http://gsjournal.net/books/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-2011-A4.pdf

Thierry's writings are based on a 19th century precursor to general relativity which didn't fit some tests though it was close. The differences are slight though but as such they would make much difference to anything that you're interested in. I've replied directly to Thierry on such matters in several threads on ResearchGate.

Hi George,

unfortunately i do not know enough yet to argue one way or the other.

could it be if the conventional assumption of an expanding universe is wrong and The Pearlman SPIRAL is the actuality than Dr. De Mees would have been right to begin with? 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/How_the_Plasma_Universe_Creates_Galaxies_and_Stars.php

here is another approach that might be right if a steady state oscillation somewhat static universe and not an expanding one.

Unfortunately Roger, that is an "Electric Universe" site, widely recognised as being crackpot nonsense. The first headline says "There is no real theory of how galaxies form within Big Bang Universe" but it then goes on to give three quotes, all of which are essentially the same. There are two possible ways galxies could have formed, either by large galaxies forming first and breaking up into smaller ones or by small clusters forming first which then coalesced into large structures. The first occurs if dark matter was "hot", meaning that it was moving at speeds comparable to the speed of light, and the second happens if the dark matter was "cold". It was determined that dark matter is cold a couple of decades ago and large scale surveys show that the statistics of the distribution of galaxies accurately match the "Lambda - Cold Dark Matter" or LCDM model. The first quote on the page says exactly that, the other two were probably written last century when measurements were more sparse but they say the same thing so the site's attempt to suggest there is any controversy is purely artificial.

Computing techniques have evolved dramatically over the last decade to allow supercomputer modelling of galaxy formation and the results have been spectacular, I've linked some below but this is a fast moving field and there are others I've not listed. Note that these simulate the effects of gravity on the constituents of the universe and you can see that this alone produces sheets then filaments then knots or halos of material that are the origin of galaxies. The EU sites all claim that electric currents form filaments but gravity can't, but you can see for yourself that that isn't true.

http://icc.dur.ac.uk/Eagle/

http://www.illustris-project.org/about/#public

http://hipacc.ucsc.edu/Bolshoi/

I have a lot to learn about how stars could have possibly formed earlier and closer to the initial singularity.

but feel all the empirical evidence of cosmological redshift on distant starlight indicates just that.

here is an analogy.

assume an empty lake with no frogs is a universe,

then start filling from the bottom center.

have one a pair of frogs lay and fertilize one large cluster of fertilized eggs.with as many tiny eggs as there are galaxies in our universe. 

make sure enough nourishment so each egg grows into a tadpole and space each other in proportion to the spacing of our galaxies in our universe.

So as the tadpoles grow into frogs, each with as many cells as a galaxy has stars, the lake fills, as frogs mature reach full adult size just  as the lake becomes full and stabilizes.

Now comes scientists who did not witness any of this and see a lake full of adult frogs.

We are at the point we can detect the lake filled from  a central point.

We are at the point we can tell all the frogs started by that point.

Yet the standard models are still assuming all the frogs were created/evolved independently were we see them now.

Am i the biologist that can best explain the physical processes involved in how we have frogs to begin with, how they have eggs and turn into frogs? no, 

Does that mean one who holds the frogs were created 'out there' should discount, or can prove wrong, those who hypothesis the actuality the frogs started by the center then expanded out? no.

there has been decades of consideration how the stars formed 'out there' we need to give equal consideration to how the stars formed by here toward the center now that we know there was a center by the singularity as CMB indicates, and the empirical evidence of cosmological redshift confirms assuming the Pearlman SPIRAL is the actuality.

I need the astro - physicist that can best explain the physical processes involved.

It was never a question of if G-d did it. Of course G-d did it. Science is about how G-d did it. Assume G-d could have done it either way. What do the natural observations tell us about the actuality? The evidence (cosmological redshift) indicates the stars emanated form nearby us in all directions, based on the overwhelming probability, as the case is laid out in The Pearlman SPIRAL..

Assuming a female baby is born with all her eggs-

Another example, the first person to discover a female child is born with all the eggs she will have as an adult, did not have to understand all the biology and chemistry if and how that design evolved or was created to be. Just that it was the actuality based on the empirical observation. 

So that i am am not the one with the detailed scientific knowledge to explain and later prove how stars formed 'nearby' in no way negates the scientific natural observations that attest to that  they did is the actuality.

RMP: Now comes scientists who did not witness any of this and see a lake full of adult frogs.

You are forgetting to take into account the fact that light has a finite speed. What the scientists see is adults nearby, younger frogs a little farther away, tadpoles beyond that. However, it's not a good analogy for a number of reasons. Here is a better one.

Imagine you are in a field at sunset and it's been a humid day but skies are clear. As the air cools, a thin mist starts to form. Looking carefully you see tiny droplets of water nearby slowly growing in size as they merge with their neighbours. Looking farther away, due again to the finite speed of light, you see the droplets were smaller in the past. Looking at the density, we see that droplets were closer together in the past so we infer that the air is expanding, carrying the droplets apart as it does so. Remember, the 'singularity' was a singularity in time, not in space, so the mist started forming everywhere equally some time ago.

Note also, "nearer to the singularity" just means "at an earlier time" and while that is still a question under investigation (the James Webb telescope will help immensely as it works in the infra-red), the range is from about 30 million years to 130 million years after the singularity.

RMP: there has been decades of consideration how the stars formed 'out there' we need to give equal consideration to how the stars formed by here toward the center now that we know there was a center by the singularity as CMB indicates

You misunderstand, the uniformity of the CMB and the density of galaxies we can see that arose a few hundred million years later means there is no centre. Conditions "out there" and "near here" are the same once you take the time it took for their light to reach us into account. However that may be of lesser importance, it's just FYI.

The expansion since then has at first slowed a little and is now speeding up and the rates are sloothly varying and in accordance with the model based on general relativity's equations for gravity so "formed by here" and then were separted from us by expansion is pretty much the standard big bang model.

RMP: the case is laid out in The Pearlman SPIRAL..

The limited description you gave of that was badly flawed, that may just be the way you expressed it, but it didn't explain redshift at all, what you said would result in no redshift at all so it's existence appears to eliminate your model entirely.

Hi George,

I agree my analogy could have been a lot better.

I do hold the singularity was in space as well as in time, that may account for how our two internally consistent models (both holding by a fixed speed of light..) are so far apart.

The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis would definatly predict the CR we observe. The observations of CR are a lot closer aligned w/ the SPIRAL than the standard model based on the laws of probability. It was a book to buid that case so do not want to get into a long debate here without someone who studied same prior.

I think you will also admit if a static universe (if CR not due to cosmic expansion a static model should get at least = consideration) it throws off the entire standard model as CMB would not work w/ a universe stuck at 13 B under current standard model.

Also Obler's (spelling?)  paradox would negate deep time if a static universe..

RMP: I do hold the singularity was in space as well as in time,

That is incorrect. If you roll back the Robertson-Walker metric then you reach a time when the density was infinite, that's where the maths breaks down, but it does so because the scale factor goes to zero so all locations become the same and conditions were the same everywhere subsequently so there is no centre in the metric.

The 'fixed speed of light' part is a different question, you seem to abandon it from what you said of your hypothesis previously in that you seeemed to be saying that galaxies moved faster than their own light, but as I said, that may be because I misunderstood what you were saying.

Hi George, there was either zero - nothing or there was something. If nothing no time, no space.

if the singularity was something than a by/around a fixed point in space. 

Hi Roger,

RMP: there was either zero - nothing or there was something. If nothing no time, no space.

That's right, the classical theory says there was a transition from nothing, no time or space, to something, a manifold with both time and space, and that whatever contents existed were distributed roughly evenly. The same physical laws apply everywhere so the density of "stuff" that those laws generate would also be the same everywhere. The "singularity" is the moment (or technically just after, when our maths runs out) when the transition from nothing to something occurred.

From your previous message:

RMP: The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis would definatly predict the CR we observe.

You said that after the galaxies moved apart, the universe became static. That means no significant further change of separation hence no red shift. As I say, though, your description was sketchy so I may have misunderstood.

RMP: The observations of CR are a lot closer aligned w/ the SPIRAL than the standard model based on the laws of probability.

Redshift in the standard model is nothing to do with probability, sorry but I'm not clear what you are talking about there.

RMP: I think you will also admit if a static universe (if CR not due to cosmic expansion a static model should get at least = consideration) ..

A static model is unstable and would collapse in a finite time but we know that expansion is the correct explanation for the redshift from so many observations that it's pointless going down a dead end.

RMP: Also Obler's (spelling?) paradox would negate deep time if a static universe..

Olbers' Paradox negates a static universe, every line of sight should eventually hit a star so the whole sky should be at an average temperature of thousands of degrees. Of course a static universe is also infinitely old since no matter how far back you roll time, it never changes. The actual age of 13 billion years is much too low for that to happen given the density of galaxies, it would need a much older universe, hence we predominantly see the CMB between galaxies.

Hi George,

The CR per Pearlman SPIRAL prevalent in distant stars originated from those stars, while they were still moving away from us, prior to them going into a somewhat static - (steady state oscillation phase?) by the end of that initial inflation and expansion early in the formation of the universe up to 13B LY +/- radius.

Even if static i think you would agree it could stay somewhat stable for 7,000 years before 'a big crunch' .

Olber's paradox (thank you for corrected spelling) i agree would negate a static universe if deep time were the actuality.

but a static universe 5,776 years old, no problemo.:)

Terminology is part of the problem Roger, "static" means unchanging (on average) so is automatically infinitely old.

Hi George,

Did not Einstein already hold by a big bang, which implies a start, and a subsequent expansion, thus not fitting your definition of 'Static' when he held by an Einstein 'Static' universe?

advise,

but either way, see my question on how to define/label, The Pearlman SPIRAL starts out at a singularity and only becomes somewhat static after an expansion and inflation to the LY distance where the most distant stars -

are per Pearlman SPIRALL

were per SCM when the light we see from them now departed them.

so 13 B LY +/- current estimate.

whomever down voted comment showing Einstein 'Static' shows a description as static does not mean it was eternally static please explain, or remove the down vote.

whomever down voted comment showing Einstein 'Static' shows a description as static does not mean it was eternally static please explain /justify your vote, if not undo it,.

Hi George, Did not Einstein already hold by a big bang, which implies a start, and a subsequent expansion, thus not fitting your definition of 'Static' when he held by an Einstein 'Static' universe?

No, he initially rejected the idea of a "big bang"model out of hand preferring the static model. I didn't downvote it but it probably happened because your post is factually incorrect and shows that you haven't bothered to find out the actual story before making incorrect claims.

At the time he started modelling the universe, telescopes were so poor that only our Milky Way was understood and that has a fairly stable size. He then tried to match that with his (then) new theory of gravity but the theory predicted the galaxy would have collapsed. To fix that, he added what is called the Cosmological Constant, which was mathematically valid. His universe would have been static and eternal. However, he later realised that the result would be like balancing a sharp pencil on its point, in theory it can be done but it is a condition of unstable equilibrium, and he famously called it his "greatest blunder". For the rest of the century everyone assumed his constant had a value of zero and it is one of the great ironies of cosmology that in 1998 we found that the constant is actually correct and represents about 72% of the energy density of the universe. You may know under the alternative name of "dark energy".

The idea of a finite age universe came from Friedmann who developed a set of equations which describe the expanding universe. His work was ignored and he died in 1925 but a Belgian priest, Msgr George Lemaître independently found the same answer. There's a link attached where you can find out about him. This is from the article:

At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable" ("Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.")

Subsequently, Robertson and Walker showed the general form was the only solution that described an isotropic and homogemeous universe so we talk of the solution as the "FLRW metric" for Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker. That is the basis of the current cosmological model, everythting since has been adding detail.

If you don't want to be down-voted, I suggest you look at the history of how the current model was originated in the links attached.

RMP: The Pearlman SPIRAL starts out at a singularity ..

In that case it is a "big bang" model.

RMP: .. only becomes somewhat static after an expansion and inflation to the LY distance where the most distant stars are ..

The rate of expansion over time is what generates the redshift. If you take the factual observations of redshift and put a few numbers (energy densities) into the Friedmann Equations, you can match those observations and then you get the 13.8 billion year measured age for the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric#Name_and_history

Hi George,

Thank you, i should double check,

we see Einstein was still alive and theorizing  after the big bang became the standard.

regardless of whether (as i thought) or not (as you back) Einstein held by a big bang start he held (when he still held by an Einstein Static Universe) the universe was not expanding in recent history, (or as you indicate not expanding ever).

my understanding of why Einstein capitulated to an ' expanding' universe were Hubble's CR (cosmological redshift) measurements and explanation that uses ongoing cosmic expansion (either a resumption or a continuation from the initial expansion/s).

so either way my take is Einstein's biggest blunder was capitulating to this ongoing cosmic expansion hypothesis when our factual CR evidence indicates the CR  is not due to this cosmic expansion, but is due to The Pearlman SPIRAL ie is the result of the inflation epoch being after not before early stellar formation..

The Pealman Spiral indicates the universe is not being subjected to ongoing expansion.

This is something Einstein most likely never considered, I assume due to bias for deep time and or the Copernican principle, and or the lack of technology you speak of in your prior post, or failure to consider inflation, or failure to consider stellar formation could have been before inflation, even if he had considered inflation at speeds (vastly) greater than light speed.

best,

r. 

No, you still have it a bit wrong. Einstein's first view was based on knowledge of our own galaxy only, what we now know are other galaxies were still mistaken by many astronomers to be nebulae within the Milky Way at that time. As soon as other galaxies were found, he realised his maths had been saying that the universe had to be expanding and if he had trusted the science, he could have predicted that fact before the astronomers recognised other galaxies for what they were.

Ongoing expansion is directly derived from the form of the Hubble Law. As we look farther away, we see increasing redshift meaning that the expansion must be ongoing. If it had happened in a short burst as you seem to favour, we would see no redshift for nearby galaxies, then a very high value for a limited range, then no redshift again beyond that. There is a direct mathematical relationship between the shape of the Hubble Law and the past rate of expansion so we can calculate what it was at any time in the past. For the most distant galaxies we can see, the redshift has a value of about 8 (given the letter z usually) meaning the universe has expanded by a factor of 9 i.e. 1+z.

Your comments on inflation are again nonsensical, inflation is a hypothetical mechanism responsible for the creation of matter (the phase known as "reheating") and is about what happened when the universe was less than a billionth of a second old, it could not happen later.

RMP: The Pealman Spiral indicates the universe is not being subjected to ongoing expansion.

Then it is wrong.

Hi George,

regardless of what Einstein thought or or did not think of does not change the reality.

If the universe was bigger than he initially thought, and he did not hold by an initial singularity / big bang, 

by itself has nothing to do with if the universe is expanding or was larger to begin with.

your asserting the current conventional view CR proves an ongoing cosmic expansion would lead one to conclude that the universe is expanding.

The Pearlman SPIRAL CR hypothesis explains why the same factual measurements of CR do not indicate ongoing expansion but are a result of and evidence for inflation after the early stellar formation.

As long as you consider the CR as proof of an ongoing expansion you will never fairly consider the alternate hypotheses, and cosmology model based on the Pearlman SPIRAL CR hypothesis.

My comments about Einstein were that you were mis-representing his attitude, he did not "capitulate" as you put it, when the new information became available, he willingly adjusted his views to deal with it. That is how science works.

RMP: your asserting the current conventional view CR proves an ongoing cosmic expansion would lead one to conclude that the universe is expanding.

That is not what I said however, what I said was that there is a mathematical relationship between redshift and expansion which allows us to calculate the rate of expansion.

Answer me one simple question Roger, does your "alternative hypothesis" explain redshift by (a) the variation of distance between us and the light source or (b) by some physical mechanism which affects the light en route us after emission, (c) a bit of both? There's no need to go into details of the mechanism, I just want to keep my replies economical and not discuss possibilities that aren't relevant.

RMP: The Pearlman SPIRAL CR hypothesis explains why the same factual measurements of CR do not indicate ongoing expansion but are a result of and evidence for inflation after the early stellar formation.

The end of inflation released the energy from which matter was later created, and stars were formed out of that matter after it cooled so I as I have pointed out many times, your hypothesis is illogical and impossible, your sequence is in the wrong order.

Hi George,

Per The Pearlman SPIRAL,

In general we are seeing the light from when it departed the light emitting source/star at a distance in light years = to the number of years ago it departed.

That a star's light reaches here CR, as is prevalent if the star is over 6k +/- light years away, indicates the object was moving away from us when the CR light we are seeing now departed it.

There are variables such as how bright the star is and how CR'ed the light is how fast the star was moving away from us when the light departed the star, where we would need to know the values of some of those variables to give a definitive answer on how distant the star is now. or if we knew exactly how far the star is now which is one of the variables, assume the stars are not in a state of ongoing cosmic expansion, as the CR is telling us something quite different under The Pearlman SPIRAL. 

there are things we know we do not know and there are things we do not even know we do not know.

i would say i am in the former, and you are in the later category, on how stellar formation could have occurred prior to inflation, as is the scientific actuality due to the factual natural observations and measurements of CR if The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis is valid.

(question  edit  as of Jan 14, 2016)

How could CMB w/ black body spectrum have formed if: an initial singularity and stellar formation was prior to cosmic inflation? 

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB).

Assume stars formed prior to an inflation epoch as hypothesized in The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis (Prior to that the stars being so dense, their light might not have been able to escape).

Could the cause of the CMB be from prior to the stellar formation?

Could it be from during stellar formation?

Could it be from after stellar formation?

How do we know the initial temp of the cause of the CMB or could that temp be a variable that depends on what our current model of the universe is?

Assume cosmological redshift does not mean the universe is expanding, as explained by The Pearlman SPIRAL. So consider as viable alternatives a somewhat stable universe, a Earth Ecliptic centric, universe, a universe 6k +/- years old.

Thank you in advance for any and all proposed solutions you can think of. r

How could CMB w/ black body spectrum have formed if: stellar formation was prior to cosmic inflation. and the universe is static and 6k years old? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_could_CMB_w_black_body_spectrum_have_formed_if_stellar_formation_was_prior_to_cosmic_inflation_and_the_universe_is_static_and_6k_years_old [accessed Jan 14, 2016].

RMP: there are things we know we do not know and there are things we do not even know we do not know.

That is true but there is also a great deal that we do know, and for the layman, there is a great deal that those who have studied subjects like star formation know which the general public does not know.

RMP: i would say i am in the former

You are in the best place to judge your own level of knowledge, I couldn't comment.

RMP: and you are in the later category, on how stellar formation could have occurred prior to inflation

No, I am in the group that knows the broad picture of how stars form and also knows what the word "inflation" means in the specific jargon of cosmology and those together mean that what you suggest is impossible without question.

Note that I am not saying that the science is absolute, but that the meaning assigned to the word by scientists is, that's just a function of language. Inflation is a word used to describe a possible initial state of the universe and ended at a time before the matter from which stars were created had even been formed. The problem is only in your misunderstanding of the technical term.

Hi George,

I agree 'the cosmic inflation' that fits with The Pearlman SPIRAL and stellar formation prior to or during a cosmic inflation is different in some respects than the way cosmic inflation is envisioned under the standard inflation cosmology model.

yet some aspects are similar, such as a rapid expansion of the early universe at speeds up to vastly greater than the speed of light.

Hi Roger,

Basically, there is no similarity at all between your ideas and inflation. Your alternative might best be described as a brief period of rapid expansion but it is founded on Galilean Relativity and Newton's philosophy of absolute space and time so entirely divorced from modern science. It adds ad hoc super-luminal movement of stars to the old luminiferous aether theory of the 19th century. I'm trying to reduce the number of places we're discussing the same topic so please see my comments in your other threads, I'll answer any replies there.

Hi George, we can discuss over there, the only difference I can think of between SCM and Pearlman SPIRAL cosmic inflation is perhaps the order, the starting point, (as dispute if there was is a center, yes w/ SPIRAL) the time span SCM an instant? up to 24 hours max w/ SPIRAL, and if stellar formation was prior or concurrent  (SPIRAL) to cosmic expansion or subsequent to.per SCM

Hi George, here are some notes about CMB ( understood assuming SCM is the actuality),  from an EDU site (University of Michigan)? I had saved to study several months ago, and skimmed over back then, that confirm the standard understanding of CBM was early in the universe and the CMB we are seeing now is from +/- 13B LY away and 13 B years ago

Hi Roger,

Yes, there is a big difference between the standard concept, commonly known as the Concordance Model (because it uses the best fit parameters and is therefore "in accordance" with the observations), and your vision of what it says. There is a section on the first page of your notes that should give you a clue to this:

"This occurred roughly 400,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe was about one eleven hundredth its present size."

The number used in the Concordance Model is 1090 so if the CMB was emitted from material that was then 13.8 GLy away, that material would now be 1090 times farther or 15042 GLy from us. Those are wrong, the correct values are that it was 0.0416 GLY from us then and is 45.4 GLy from us now.

Your mistake is treating the distance as if it hadn't changed between then and now even though your notes recognise that it does change in standard cosmology.

I've added a link to a simple calculator, you can type in the 'z' value for the redshift of any source and it will tell you lots of interesting stuff about both then and now. If you have any questions about what the Concordance model says, that's an easy way to check. The default value is 1089 which is the CMB (one less than the ratio of expansion).

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/cosmocalc_2013.htm

(using the rounded 1000 instead of 1090)

a 1000 x expansion assertion of the CMB cooling would not be an increase of 1000 in the radius but in the area.

so the material would not be 1000 times further from us but 10 times!

so SPIRAL model  with it's no ongoing cosmic expansion is just fine with current CMB temp. based on a universe 1/10th the area of that asserted under the standard cosmology model assumptions.

Hi Roger,

We've been over this numerous times now, why are you repeating things that you now know to be completely untenable?

RMP: a 1000 x expansion assertion of the CMB cooling would not be an increase of 1000 in the radius but in the area. 

The measured factor of 1090 is the ratio of distances now to distances at the time of emission so it does apply to the radius.

RMP: is just fine with current CMB temp

That scale increase means that volumes have been increased by a factor of 10903=1,295,029,000 or roughly 1.3 billion. That means the same number of photons is spread over a larger volume so their density has been reduced by (1+z)3. Their wavelength is stretched by (1+z) which matches Wien's Displacement Law for a temperature decrease by (1+z) and the energy of each photon is also reduced by the stretching of the wavelength by (1+z) because the energy of a single photon is proportional to its frequency. That gives an overall energy factor of (1+z)4 and the power of 4 matches the value in the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is why we still see a spectrum that matches a black body of lower temperature. Overall the energy density has fallen by a factor of about 1.4 trillion.

As for your model, you haven't even suggested any method by which the CMB could have been produced or have a black body curve of the accuracy seen.

RMP: so SPIRAL model with it's no ongoing cosmic expansion

Ongoing expansion is required to explain the Hubble Law, you have no explanation for that.

Your model predicts there should be no visible stars within our galaxy beyond 5776 light years and no other galaxies in the universe whatsoever. Your model is obviously proven false by the fact that we see the core of our own galaxy  26,000 light years away by light that must have been emitted 26,000 years ago by you own model.

Similarly we see the Andromeda galaxy 2.55 million light years away by light that must have been emitted 2.55 million years ago. The Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us and will merge with ours in a few billion years from now so it shows a blue shift, not a red shift (it is therefore within what you called the "inner universe"). You have no explanation for any of that.

Just for background if you haven't studied the conventions, the number you will usually see quoted in the literature is the redshift and is given the symbol z. That is the fractional change so for small distances for example, z=0.01 means that the received wavelength measured here is 1% longer than it was at emission measured there. The ratio in that case would be 1.01:1 hence the ratio of distances is (1+z):1. That's why a redshift of z=1089 for the CMB means a distance ratio of 1090.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

Hi George,

the 1000 (rounded) fold expansion if to the radius would be a 1k x 1k x 1k = 1 billion fold expansion,

the visible universe per SCM is 46.5 B LY that would mean (if my math is correct) the thinning due too the 1000 fold expansion of the radius started at a 46.5 million LY radius.

is that what you are saying?

With SPIRAL a 46.5 +/- million LY radius under SCM  would be the equivalent of a 4.65 +/- million LY radius.

also you still do not understand SPIRAL based on your comments. but let us focus on the OP question regarding CMB please.

wikipedia: '.. By working out the precise dependence of H and \Gamma on the scale factor and equating \Gamma=H, it is possible to show that photon decoupling occurred approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang, at a redshift of z = 1100 [3] when the universe was at a temperature around 3000 K.'

what approximate radius would the visible universe be at under SCM at this event?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB). (question  edit  March 29, 2016)

Assume very dense proto-stellar formation prior to a cosmic inflation event as hypothesized in The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and no ongoing cosmic expansion subsequent to that cosmic inflation event.

Could the cause of the CMB be from:

Prior to the stellar formation?

During stellar formation?

Post stellar formation?

Prior to that cosmic inflation event?

during that event?

at the very end of that event?

Under The Standard Cosmology Model (SCM) the current distance to the most distant visible galaxies is 46.5 B LY. Is that understanding correct?

CMB-LEAK:

A sub-hypothesize in SPIRAL is the CMB should 'leak' have dissipated 1 LY per year radius beyond the most distant galaxy.

If valid under SCM the CMB is spread out over an area of a sphere with a radius of at least 59.99 B LY = 46.5B + 13.4B is this already established or a published hypothesis?

If CMB does not 'leak' / spread beyond the most distant stars at 1 LY per year why not?

.

Thank you in advance for any and all proposed solutions you can think of. r

Hi Roger,

RMP: the 1000 (rounded) fold expansion if to the radius would be a 1k x 1k x 1k = 1 billion fold expansion,

Correct, any volume would have increased by 10903 = 1.3 billion to be more accurate.

RMP: the visible universe per SCM is 46.5 B LY that would mean (if my math is correct) the thinning due too the 1000 fold expansion of the radius started at a 46.5 million LY radius. is that what you are saying?

Close enough, the material which emitted the microwave background that we see is 45.4 billion LY away now and was 41.6 million LY away at the time of emission. The universe was filled uniformly with that plasma everywhere, but the light from material closer to us has passed us by already and that from more distant material will arrive in the future.

RMP: what approximate radius would the visible universe be at under SCM at this event?

About 41.6 million light years at that time as you said.

RMP: With SPIRAL a 46.5 +/- million LY radius under SCM  would be the equivalent of a 4.65 +/- million LY radius.

No, as I understand your proposal, we could see light from no farther than 5776 light years because there was nothing beyond that distance prior to 5776 years ago.

RMP: also you still do not understand SPIRAL based on your comments

Perhaps. Are you now saying that there was material in the distant universe prior to 5776 years ago? (I have previously tried to cover both possibilities but that may have caused some confusion.)

RMP: but let us focus on the OP question regarding CMB please.

Standard cosmology says that the CMB (radiation) was emitted by hot, dense plasma mix of hydrogen and helium, a material similar to that in the surface layer of the Sun at a temperature of 2970K. We see it at the much lower temperature of 2.725K which is 2970/1090. The measurements by the COBE, WMAP and Planck probes plus lots of others tell us that the variation in the density and pressure at that time was only a few parts per million, there were no stars, galaxies or other structures in it and could not be any for tens of millions of years thereafter.

I have no idea what your alternative proposal is for the generation of the radiation we observe but more importantly, I don't understand how you propose to explain the observation of stars and galaxies more than 5776 light years away. Since the CMB comes from beyond the most distant galaxies, you need to explain that aspect before we can have any discussion of the CMB.

TY George,

I am also trying to get ideas for alternative explanations of what caused the CMB.

- do not want to get sidetracked but the SPIRAL position is

nothing physical over 5777 years ago, 

all the visible galaxies had to have formed within 5777 LY from here or they would not be visible yet.

suspect as close as 1 LY +/-

on day 4 a cosmic inflation event all those much more dense galaxies expanded and by the end of that day were in there mostly stable orbits within 5776 years of where they are now.

we see their light trails reaching us now from the light year distance = to the number of years ago that cosmic inflation day event occurred.

thus we can see galaxies that ended up billions of light years away in a universe thousands of years old.

the CMB we are seeing now would also be from about 5776 LY away 5776 years ago.

RMP: do not want to get sidetracked

Exactly, the CMB is a sidetrack.

RMP: the SPIRAL position is nothing physical over 5777 years ago

Understood.

RMP: all the visible galaxies had to have formed within 5777 LY from here

That is obviously impossible since large galaxies are around 100,000 light years across.

RMP: on day 4 a cosmic inflation event all those much more dense galaxies expanded

Inflation is the wrong term, it is so rapid that all prior material would be spread out into close to pure vacuum and no matter could exist prior to inflation. The much slower recent expansion changes the gaps between galaxies but does not change their size or that of stars. However, that too might be thought of as a sidetrack, the real problem is what you say next:

RMP: we see their light trails reaching us now from the light year distance = to the number of years ago that cosmic inflation day event occurred.

OK, you say that this event occurred 5776 years ago so that means you are saying "we see their light trails reaching us now from 5776 light years away".

Put that together with what you said first, "nothing physical over 5777 years ago" and that means we should see no light from any star more than 5776 light years away, every star and galaxy in the sky should appear to be exactly 5776 light years away apart from a few local ones.

We do see objects farther away, the centre of our galaxy at 26,000 light years and Andromeda at 2.55 million light years being simple examples, therefore your hypothesis is proven false. What part of that do you think I have misunderstood?

Hi George,

CMB is not a sidetrack CMB is the topic of this Q.

SCM and SPIRAL understanding of cosmic inflation differ in duration, timing ..

Per SPIRAL we see the light trail from stars over 6k rounded LY away not the star themselves obviously, just like under SCM claims we see the light trail from some stars

now 40B+ LY away from when it departed them 13B +/- years ago when they were billions of LY away (between 4B and 7B+/-).

RMP: Per SPIRAL we see the light trail from stars over 6k rounded LY away not the star themselves obviously,

The light you see originated ~6k light years away, that would therefore be the measured distance.

RMP: just like under SCM claims we see the light trail from some stars

No, we see the stars at the distance they were when the light was emitted. The only reason that they are no farther away is because the universe expanded since the light was emitted but your model doesn't have any ongoing expansion. Even if it did, it would be negligible, expansion is only 1% per 140 million years so completely negligible in 6k years.

The bottom line remains the same, you cannot explain how any star or galaxy can be visible beyond 5776 light years and your idea is proven to be wrong by that fact alone (not to mention dozens of others).

so the light emitted when early stars that are now 46 B LY away were  4 B LY away, that reaches us after 13B LY.

You are saying per SCM we are seeing them now 4B LY away.

Even though they are now 46B LY away.

How is this different then if SPIRAL we are seeing stars that are now a billion LY away from 6k rounded LY away 6k years ago?

Except the cosmic expansion occurred faster under SPIRAL but there was more cosmic expansion if SCM.

RMP: so the light emitted when early stars that are now 46 B LY away were 4 B LY away, that reaches us after 13B LY. You are saying per SCM we are seeing them now 4B LY away. Even though they are now 46B LY away.

Your numbers are too high but the principle is right, we see them at the distance they were when the light was emitted, not where they are now. Press releases have the annoying habit of giving either the "where they are now" prediction or the lookback time  and calling it a distance.

RMP: How is this different then if SPIRAL we are seeing stars that are now a billion LY away from 6k rounded LY away 6k years ago?

It isn't different, exactly the same principle applies, we can only measure the distance of the source based on the light we are receiving hence it tells us the distance at the time of emission. If that light was emitted when the source was 6k light years away, that is the distance we would measure no matter where it went thereafter. That is exactly why the fact that we see sources much farther away shows your proposal to be flawed.

OK I have updated 'The Pearlman SPIRAL' to explained why CMB approximate blackbody aligns better with SPIRAL than it does with SCM.

and how to use CMB temperature to get a fix on the exact size of the universe without deep time or YeC assumptions under SCM and SPIRAL assumptions.

another nice thing with stellar formation under SPIRAL vs SCM is there is no 'accretion' issue as there is under SCM narrative.

Until you can produce a model that explains how we see the core of our galaxy 26,000 light years away, hence with light that has been travelling for 26,000 years, the CMB is irrelevant, your hypothesis is proven wrong by observation. Similarly for the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.55 million light years away and moving towards us i.e. blue shifted.

Our Sun is 4.5 billion years old (by heliosiesmology) and is third generation so any age of the universe less than about 7 to 8 billion years is trivially ruled out.

Roger, have you not realised you're flogging a dead horse now? Your model would require that there should be NO visible stars, galaxies or anything else beyond ~6k light years but the truth is that the vast majority of everything we see is far beyond that distance.

Hi George,

SPIRAL does provide the mechanism to see starlight from stars that are now billions of light years away.

billions of LY is more than 6k light years :)

I have noted a natural mechanism that could account for light exposed to cosmic expansion to have lost it's cosmological red-shift.

RMP: SPIRAL does provide the mechanism to see starlight from stars that are now billions of light years away.

It says we should see the light that they emitted when they were 6k light years away (or less) even though they might now be farther from us. Since the distance we measure only tells us where the source was at the time of emission, all the stars we see should be seen less than 6k light years from us and nothing beyond that.

Sorry Roger, but the idea just doesn't work. Playing tricks with the words isn't going to get you out of that.

RMP: I have noted a natural mechanism that could account for light exposed to cosmic expansion to have lost it's cosmological red-shift.

I doubt that too but it's beside the point, we see stars farther away than is possible in your model, that is all that is necessary to rule it out.

HI George,

just like under SCM  the stars we  see now that were 4B LY away 13B LY ago are now 46.5 B LY away 42.5B LY beyond there formation point based on the assumtion of OCE (ongoing cosmic expansion) 

how can you tel for sure the light you see has traveled over 6k LY and that the stars are where you think you are seeing them if all the CE was over by the end of a day 4 cosmic inflation event?

RMP: how can you tel for sure the light you see has traveled over 6k LY and that the stars are where you think you are seeing them

You still haven't grasped the problem Roger, I'm not talking about where the stars are now, no matter where I may think that may be, the figures we have been discussing are where they were when the light was emitted. That's 26,000 light years away 26,000 years ago for the galactic core and 2.55 million light years away 2.55 million years ago for Andromeda. If either of those was closer before 6k years ago, we would see it at that closer location.

I feel you really need to think hard about the diagram I posted back in January, it appears you still don't grasp what it says and it completely rules out your hypothesis so it's important that you follow how it works. It shows examples of five stars at varying distances now, but all would be seen at the measured distance where the star track is intersected by the red speed-of-light line, and that intersection is always less than 6k light years away.

Hi George,

are you implying the light trails from those stars bent?

if a straight line how do you know if you are seeing light from where the star is now assuming it is over 6k LY away and not from where it was 6k years ago?

Hi Roger,

RMP: are you implying the light trails from those stars bent?

No. The plots show the distance from Earth so curves in the blue lines mean that at one time they moved quickly so the lines are nearly horizontal, a large change of radial distance in a short time. After that they moved slowly hence the lines are nearly vertical, the distance isn't changing significantly. My intention is that the chart mirrors the descriptions you've given.

RMP: how do you know if you are seeing light from where the star is now

Please read my previous message again, I emphasised that we are NOT talking about where they are NOW. I must have said that a dozen times but you seem to have some sort of mental block, you can't see those words no matter how often I repeat them. On the diagram, we see the light from the intersection of the red line with each blue line. That point defines both the distance (horizontal axis) and lookback time (vertical axis).

Yes we agree we are not seeing the stars where they are now.

in the SPIRAL we are seeing them where they were (the LY distance = to the number of years ago) when the light departed them.

In SCM where there is OCE not even that but distant starlight takes longer to get here than the LY distance from where they were when the light was emitted.

So why do you hold we can see light that has traveled over 6k LY if  SPIRAL is the actuality?

Hi Roger,

RMP: Yes we agree we are not seeing the stars where they are now. in the SPIRAL we are seeing them where they were (the LY distance = to the number of years ago) when the light departed them.

Excellent, that is exactly what I've been saying too.

RMP: So why do you hold we can see light that has traveled over 6k LY

Simply because the distances we measure to those sources are far beyond that.

As I have said many times, the galactic core is measured as being around 26k light years away. I also agree your statement above that "the LY distance = to the number of years ago" hence the sources in the core were at that location 26k years ago.

The speeds we measure for those objects are compatible with them orbiting around the centre of the galaxy, they are seen moving towards us on one side and away from us on the other

RMP: if SPIRAL is the actuality?

Well obviously, since we can see sources that were far beyond 6k light years from us tens of thousands of years ago, what you call "SPIRAL" is proven to be wrong, it bears no relation to reality.

Hi George,

so there are at least two ways the 5,776 year to date position can stand.

the current distance estimates are overstated.

and or

there was CE by us away from the core, and or the core away from us to account for the difference between any distance in the length of the light trail over 5776 LY.

and or something we are not thinking of yet.

Hi Roger,

RMP: the current distance estimates are overstated.

They aren't estimates, they are measurements.

At the distances to the core, direct parallax can be used. The accuracy depends on the distance but can be around plus or minus 10% at over 26k light years.

I've attached two maps showing the locations of some different systems that have been studied together with links to the papers from which they come.

For the Andromeda Galaxy the distance is 2.54 million light years with an uncertainty of 110 thousand light years so there is no possibility of a distance of a few thousand light years. Obviously simple logic tells you that another independent galaxy the same size as our could be inside our own anyway. I've linked the relevant paper too.

RMP: there was CE by us away from the core, and or the core away from us

No, that's just the same problem discussed above, expansion of the form you suggest and illustrated in the chart would result in everything being seen at a distance of 6k light years. That's why your hypothesis doesn't work.

p.s the scales are in kilo-parsecs and 5776 light years equates to 1.771kpc.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3181

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5377

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511045

 'would result in everything being seen at a distance of 6k light years.'

it works this way with CMB

under the standard model we are seeing CMB from when it departed the same 13.5B LY (rounded) distance from an = amount of LY ago from every direction,

in SPIRAL it would be 5,776 LY and years ago.

so why not the star light too if the SPIRAL is correct in proto- stellar formation preceded a cosmic inflation cosmic expansion event 5776 years ago ?

that would account for the CR measurements showing the more distant stars outer universe having more CR the more distant they are.

also not need ongoing cosmic expansion along with the missing dark matter required if it is valid..

Roger,

The distance ladder by which we estimate the distances to cosmic objects is, like any other measure, a complex one. It starts out with near utter certainty;

Parallax: the apparent movement over the course of half a solar year, in the position of an object. The wide-field camera on Hubble gives us *absolute* distances to the visible location of a star out to about 20 kly.

And over such 'short' distances there is negligible Hubble expansion (we see no overall redshift at such short ranges)

So these are not matters of dispute.

After parallax measures there are a number of techniques that overlap with the farthest parallax measures: Cepheid stars, being the most common.

But why type when I can link?

http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/cosmic/

Hi James,

how much if any a difference would it make if the Cosmological Redshift (CR)  is due to ongoing cosmic expansion (CE) as assumed by Hubble expansion or if the CR is not evidence of ongoing CE. If no OCE would not a lot of the known distances be much closer?

For example stars that formed 4B LY away are still that far not 46.5B LY if no ongoing CE as per SPIRAL.

Assuming they were 4B LY to begin with.

RMP: it works this way with CMB under the standard model we are seeing CMB from when it departed the same 13.5B LY (rounded) distance from an = amount of LY ago from every direction,

Sorry Roger, that's completely wrong. I thought we had already cleared up that error but let's go over it again. In the standard model, the material that emitted the CMB was 41 million light years from us when the light was emitted 13.8 billion years ago. If you are now happy to accept those numbers, so am I, but again it refutes your hypothesis.

That distance increased by a factor of 1090 to around 46 billion light years during those 13.8 billion years due to what you call "ongoing expansion", and the wavelength was reduced by the same factor, an effect we call cosmological redshift but in your hypothesis:

a) nothing existed 13.8 billion years ago

and

b) there is no ongoing expansion

so you cannot explain away the flaw in your model by using features that don't exist in your model.

RMP: in SPIRAL it would be 5,776 LY and years ago.

And that means we would see whatever sources existed then at no more than 5776 light years distance since light travels exactly that distance in that time.

The observation of sources beyond that distance refutes your model.

RMP: how much if any a difference would it make if the Cosmological Redshift (CR) is due to ongoing cosmic expansion (CE) as assumed by Hubble expansion or if the CR is not evidence of ongoing CE.

Absolutely none whatsoever, cosmological redshift is negligible at distances less than a few tens of millions of light years. Remember the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.54 million light years away and is blue-shifted, we see it moving towards us.

RMP: If no OCE would not a lot of the known distances be much closer?

No, it would make no difference whatsoever, the numbers in the papers above are measured so they were at those locations when the light was emitted.

CR doesn't apply but within the galaxy, we can think about the orbital speed around the core. Using toy numbers, if we measure the speed of a source 25,000 light years away to be 240km/s or 0.08% of the speed of light, then we can infer that it has moved 20 light years during the time the light took to get here, but that doesn't alter where it was 25,000 years ago. Also, that's a distance much smaller than the uncertainty in the measurement (around plus or minus 300 light years) so is negligible in the context.

In other words, for several reasons, the above maps of our galaxy are valid regardless of which model you use and you hypothesis is consequently proven to be wrong.

Roger,

> If no OCE would not a lot of the known distances be much closer?

No.

As I wrote, there is no single measure used to gauge the range to a cosmic object.

Parallax works stunningly well for nearby objects, and then there are Cepheid variables, followed by supernovae.

The last two methods rely on the fact that SN and Cepheid variable stars have well-described standard brightnesses - they are so-called 'standard candles'. Cepheids in particular, are interesting. They are variable stars that have light curves that depend on their luminosity.

Thus, if one sees a variable star of a certain period, at a certain brightness, that pins down exactly how far away it can be.

This is all covered well in introductory texts, like Zeilik and Smith and the method has been extensively studied for the best part of half a century.

Hi George, 

thank you for reminding me, i agree under SCM the CMB we are seeing now has traveled 13.8 B LY in 13.8 B Years but departed from just 41 Million light years from us 13.8B years ago and the CMB that was less than 41M  LY away from us 13.8B years ago, that was coming toward us, had to travel less than 13.8 B LY to get to us  so has already passed us, after factoring in SCM assumptions of ongoing cosmic expansion.

SPIRAL disputes if CE ever played a role in our galaxy.

That is even closer to the analogy i wantto make with SPIRAL.

all the CMB radiation/light starts out w/in a relatively short distance from here. Per SCM w/in 41M LY. That light is not evenly distributed al all distances between here and 46.5 radius from here.

add 13.5B +/- to that radius so over a sphere w/ a radius of 59.99 B LY when taking ' SCM Leakage' hypothesis into account.

Contrast that with SPIRAL where all the much more dense proto-stars/galaxies  formed within 1k LY from here, perhaps much less, then during a cosmic inflation/cosmic expansion event became distributed throughout the visible universe. 

A predicted 5,776 years ago.

The radius of the universe has yet to be verified  if SPIRAL and not SCM/OCE is teh reality, but SPIRAL provides the equation how to measure for the actuality using  the CMB temp change rate using the CMB expansion rate of 1 LY per year. based on SPIRAL assumptions and for SCM assumptions. 

just because something was subjected to CE in the past does not mean that light can not lose its cosmological redshift for some reason. For example CR light after entering the ocean should start to have it's frequency shortened from red heading toward blue.

the same reasons could apply to Andromena now being blue shifted

SPIRAL disputes ongoing cosmic expansion. 

have a good week end, r