> What proof do we have the Light travels for ever?

I am not quite sure what you are asking as the Observable Universe is finite in age and extent.

> There is nothing in the Nature that "lasts for ever".

We are not sure what "forever" means other than maybe within some mathematical models, i.e., the limit in which time tends to infinity.

> For our scales, it may look "long and ever" but we can't take that as an essential fact.

Sure, and "a very long time" maybe enough for our models to match what we see to a high degree of accuracy.

My point is our Physics is based on Myopia both at Macro and Micro scales. There are many things that we assume but pretend we are observing the "verification rule" at all scales.

SKS> [There is nothing in the Nature that "lasts for ever"].

It is true! According to dialectical thought, nothing lasts forever; not to speak of travelling! For dialectics, “everything comes into being and passes out of existence” in this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe.

It is true that photons have a long half-life and we can see photons coming from cosmic bodies billions of light years away around us, but all photons eventually get absorbed by existing matter, decays to the background radiation (CMBR) or go out of existence (like other quantum particles) into the quantum vacuum through quantum tunnelling or through some other yet unknown processes; the same way new photons (or other new quantum particles) comes into existence; as an eternal process.

Please see at least the following articles for an explanation:

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

The greatest distance we can see using light is to the material that emitted the cosmological microwave background (CMB). That material was opaque so we cannot see any farther back than that, and of course it was emitted some time before the first stars and then galaxies came into existence.

The spectrum has been measured which, using the black body emission law, tells us the temperature and that in turn tells us the expected intensity. The FIRAS instrument on the COBE mission (the forerunner to WMAP and then Planck) measured the intensity and found it was indistinguishable from the black body prediction, so over 13.8 billion years, there is no detectable loss (after accounting for redshift of course).

It would be very peculiar for light not to "travel forever" other than obviously where is is absorbed by hitting some material in space, a planet or perhaps our telescopes for example, it would mean photons just ceasing to exist for no good reason.

CMBR photons represent the “zero-point energy” of the infinite and eternal universe; mandated by the uncertainty principle. CMBR is the quasi-equilibrium state (at low energy) of photons; whose absorbance rate by existing matter is very low and where the rate of their generation/disappearance (through quantum tunnelling) from/to the quantum vacuum is high (because of low energy requirements).

Article THE COSMIC GAMMA-RAY HALO.

AM: CMBR photons represent the “zero-point energy” of the infinite and eternal universe

If that were true, its temperature would not have been higher in the past as we observe. Sorry but that's a non-starter.

GD> "its temperature would not have been higher in the past as we observe."

How do you know it "have been higher in the past" ? We never existed in the past to see that, we only see it now. And please forget your Big Bang creation: your idea of the "past"; higher or lower or anything else comes from your premise that the universe was created in a finite past and it is expanding. Sorry, but that's a non-starter!

If you see only what YOU WANT TO SEE (COBE, GWs, BH ad nauseum) in the light and in conformity with your premise and your theory; it is little wonder that you would never see anything else - like the presence of antimatter in the universe, as demostrated by the detection of the Gamma Ray Halo around the Milky Way; GRBs etc. as discussed in the article I cited.

But your myopic and selective view does not constitute science, Sir!

Please read the following article written as a rebattal of COBE:

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Please note: I will post below a comment published in "Nature News Blog" :"In the Field" just after Nobel Award for the COBE scientists.

"Cosmic Ripples Net Physics Prize": "Nature News Blog"

Nobel Prize for Big Bang Theory Raises Big Questions. Is Nobel Prize in Physical Sciences Losing Some of Its Nobleness?

The recent award in support of the Big bang theory seems to be a notable point of departure for Nobel awards in Natural Sciences. While Nobel awards for World Peace, Economics and even Literature can be construed to be based on subjective (ideological, politico-economical etc.) considerations of “Western” interest, awards for Natural sciences always remained beyond any trace of controversy.

Cynics, for example can point out that, during the past few decades at least, Nobel World Peace prize was awarded for ideological consideration against the “Evil Soviet Empire” [Andrei Sakharov – 1975, Lech Walesa – 1983, Mikhail S. Gorbachev – 1990] and for politico-economic interest in the case of the Middle East [Menachem Begin and Anwar el-Sadat -1978, Yasir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin – 1994, Shirin Ebadi – 2004]. Even the aptly deserving World Peace award to Jimmy Carter – 2002 was in general perceived to be a reaction against recent American policies in the Middle East.

Nobel awards in Natural sciences on the contrary always merited almost universal consensus, especially from those working in the field. These awards were always characterized by strict adherence to objectivity, the importance of the discovery and an uncompromising demand for verifiable experimental results. Albert Einstein was awarded Nobel Prize for his work on photoelectric effect, but not for his theories of Special and General Relativity, even though these two theories dominated the practice of Natural science for the last 100 years. Another notable example is the idea of “Black Hole”, even though vigorous claims about its existence are being made for a long time. The Theory of General Relativity (GR) still remains a field of vigorously active research and a major preoccupation of modern physics; astrophysics and cosmology; where increasingly tenuous attempts are being made to prove GR with even better accuracy – a passion apparently guided by a lingering doubt about its validity and the necessity to support related theories such as Big bang by proxy.

Both GR and the Big bang theory that has its scientific root in the former were dogged with controversy and scepticism from the moment they were proposed. It is a historical fact that Arthur Eddington over-enthusiastically claimed to have proven GR based on partial results of his experiments on the bending of star light by the gravity of the Sun. Calculations based on the complete data recorded by his team did not support the initial claim by Eddington. Although later experiments by other researchers verified the bending of star light by the Sun, this episode set a bad precedent which prompted Stephan Hawking to observe, “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.(“A Brief History of Time”, Bantam Books, p-32, (1988)). Einstein’s initial insertion of a fudge factor (for a static universe) in his equation and later claim (after Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe) that it was the “biggest blunder of his life” was also unhelpful. All the sophisticated and difficult experiments (including COBE) done later on were perceived by many to be contrived and seemed to have been carried out in response to new requirements to keep the theories alive.

COBE based study of the microwave background radiation is the most sophisticated experiment ever done on this subject. This required expensive and elaborate logistical, technical, data processing etc. expertise and instruments that had to work at the very limit of their technical abilities. A study of this nature can only be carried out by a resourceful government supported agency like NASA. A repetition of any aspect of this study seems unlikely in the near future and remains outside the ability of any other group of scientists. Although GR commands total loyalty from most established and mainstream physicists, this is not the case with Big bang theory. Opposition to the officially accepted Big bang theory was voiced on empirical and epistemological grounds by a significant fraction of astrophysicists and cosmologists since 1950s and it is still growing. Ambartsumian, Arp, Alfven, Hoyle, Narlikar, Burbidge pair, Phipps are only few names among many who strongly contested the Big bang theory. Evidence for quasar-galaxy association, shell like structure of galaxies and their clusters, quantization in the physical distribution and in the redshifts of the galaxies, existence of heavy metals like iron in the intergalactic space and the quasars which are supposed to contain only primordial gas, the very high redshifts of the quasars that require much faster than light non-relativistic velocities, their unrealistic luminosity and proper motions at such enormous distances (in the Big bang scheme), observation of galaxies at 17 billion light years away – far beyond the limit predicted by the Big bang theory etc., are at odd with its paradigm.

Astronomer and astrophysicist Halton Arp, one of the most famous opponents of the Big bang theory has this to say in a personal communication in reference to the present Nobel Award, “The intergalactic medium has to have some temperature. Eddington calculated about 2.7 deg. in 1926. In the 1940’s Max Born calculated 2.7 deg. on the basis of tired light. Gamow calculated 50 deg. before Pezias and Wilson measured 2.73 deg. But a Canadian astronomer, McKellar had already measured it from the excitation of the inter-stellar CN molecule. The ultimate irony is that it is a primary reference frame which violates Einstein’s assumption about no preferred reference frames.” - And on George Smoot’s work on the small variation in the temperature of the microwave background radiation, “Eric Lerner in his latest summary describes how, that “face of God” (a remark made by Smoot after his discovery – AM) is now falling apart. The predictions stepped down a number of times before any irregularities finally showed up at 10^-5.”

The claims of the Big bang theory at best are being contested and at worst are uncertain. The Nobel Award of this nature seems to be an exception to the tradition. According to the Nobel citation, the Big bang “is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE”. Even though Per Carlson, chairman of the Nobel physics committee said according to press reports that “they have not proven the Big bang theory, but they give it very strong support”; this award represents a very strong endorsement of the Big bang theory and very likely will further stifle healthy scientific debate on this issue. This endorsement adds to the one already given by the Vatican.

Posted by: Abdul Malek | December 21, 2006 11:58 PM http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/10/cosmic_ripples_net_physics_pri.html

GD> "its temperature would not have been higher in the past as we observe."

AM: How do you know it "have been higher in the past"

See for example this paper:

Article The evolution of the cosmic microwave background temperature...

GD> "See for example this paper":

The paper you cited says in the Abstract; "A prediction of the standard hot Big-Bang model is the linear increase with redshift of the black-body temperature of the CMB ( T CMB )."

I have seen "examples" like this many times before. The "research" starts with the premise and the mantra it sets out to "prove" - A mere tautology, what is Einsteinian "cosmology"!.

"Big Bang" creation and redshift as a measure of distance or the "past" ; is a non-starter for me. Hubble himself and not to speak of my friend Chip, never accepted what is paraded as Hubble's Law!

Your reference is like many others that I have seen, but ( to borrow an expression from our (Canadian) singer Shania Twain), "That don't impress me much".

Please try to get used to a new and rational cosmology instead!

https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

AM: The paper you cited says in the Abstract; "A prediction of the standard hot Big-Bang model is the linear increase with redshift of the black-body temperature of the CMB ( T CMB )."

It is required and logical that you state what is being tested before showing the data and analysis otherwise nobody knows why you have written it.

The analysis proves that the temperature was higher in the past, and it is not the only study to have confirmed this.

AM: Please try to get used to a new and rational cosmology instead!

Philosophical ideas that are in conflict with repeatable observations are falsified. Tough luck.

GD> "It is required and logical that you state what is being tested before showing the data and analysis otherwise nobody knows why you have written it."

There is no logic but only faith behind the collection of data and analysis; the only aim is to "prove" the "truth", premise and the axiom of the "theory", by any "experimental magic" (miracles) - a practice the Churchmen used to do(probably still do) on the believers of the old days.

GD> "Philosophical ideas that are in conflict with repeatable observations are falsified. Tough luck."

The theologues claim, "ALL the experiments on GR "proved" it with flying colours". According to the Guru of official physics (and probably yours too) Karl Popper, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. If more than a hundred years of "repeatable observations" could not falsify this theory; then by the definition of the Guru, GR is not a scientific theory!

By the way, did Newton's theories need even a single "experimental proof" ? Not to speak of centuries long "proving" of GR and still counting! Newton's theories are being "proved" billions of times each day in practice of modern life. Does GR have a single social/historical practice in more that hundred years of its existence, to show its validity as a scientific theory, the way Newton's theories does?

Can you falsify the "theory" that God of theology exist? By this measure (and by that of Popper), ins't GR a "theory" of theology but not a theory of physics? Tough luck, indeed!

AM: There is no logic but only faith behind the collection of data and analysis;

Instruments don't have faith. That problem lies with you.

AM: By the way, did Newton's theories need even a single "experimental proof"

No valid theory is ever proven, but incorrect theories can be falsified by contradictory observation. That is the case with yours.

AM: a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

Exactly.

AM: If more than a hundred years of "repeatable observations" could not falsify this theory; then by the definition of the Guru, GR is not a scientific theory!

The observation of starlight during an eclipse by Eddington could have falsified GR, but instead it falsified Newton's Law. Every other test you mentioned as "more than a hundred years of 'repeatable observations'" had the ability to falsify it but didn't. GR is falsifiable but not falsified.

GD> "GR is falsifiable but not falsified."

So is the case with the theory of the existence of God! Long live God, Einstein, GR and George Dishman; they can never be falsified!

But history tells us that so was also the case with Ptolemy's Epicycles, as long as feudalism lasted. We have to wait and see how long monopoly capitalism can keep GR un-falsifiable with centuries long contrived and deceptive (even false) "proofs"! My guess is that it would be much shorter than the lifetime of the "Epicycles"!

We have to go back to the wise statement of Dr. Srivastava: at the top of this page: [There is nothing in the Nature that "lasts for ever"].

Goethe also said the same thing in the words of Mephistopheles in his "Faust", "Alles was entsteht, Ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht! - All that exit deserve to perish!"

AM: So is the case with the theory of the existence of God.

Not true, no instrument can measure a god that chooses not to be measured, the myth is not falsifiable.

GD> Not true, no instrument can measure a god that chooses not to be measured, the myth is not falsifiable".

An instrument will only measure what you want it to measure; it does not have an independent choice of its own!. And what is more, what an instrument measures is not necessarily true unless it fits the theory of official physics. Arthur Eddington made it very clear, while “proving” GR from the bending of starlight and proclaimed the following dictum (according to Steven Weinberg: “Dream of a Final Throry”) , “Experimental data are valid only when supported by a good theory”.

This is the mantra followed by official physicists till today! If you follow this mantra, then the theories of relativity would never be falsified. OK George Dish man I agree that “the myth is not falsifiable”. But how do you KNOW that GR (for example) is not a myth until it is falsified? So the onus is on you (and official physics) to falsify GR, to prove that it is not a myth! Are you up to it George Dishmen? You have tried for more than hundred years, but boastfully failed and it does look like (the way things are going now) that you proudly will fail for the next hundred years as well!

So, by your own admission Sir, GR is a Myth, congratulations! It is no mean achievement; and we ALL can be proud of Einsteinian physics – as is the Vatican!

AM: An instrument will only measure what you want it to measure;

It measures what I apply it to but I cannot influence the value it gives.

AM: And what is more, what an instrument measures is not necessarily true unless it fits the theory of official physics.

Wrong again, making measurements and finding the don't fit the theory of the day is how new theories arise. Michelson and Morley tried to make a measurement of the speed of the Earth through the aether and the theory at that time said it would change but up to 60km/s as the Earth orbited the Sun, but the value from their instrument was a speed of zero. That changed everything.

AM: But how do you KNOW that GR (for example) is not a myth until it is falsified?

Because when Eddington measured the angle, GR said it would be 1.75 arc-seconds, Newton's law said it would be 0.875 arc-seconds. If the instrument had measured say 3 arc-seconds, both would have been falsified. The actual value was consistent with GR but not with Newton, and instruments like HIPPARCOS and GAIA have confirmed that to an accuracy orders of magnitude better.

For a theory to be considered valid, it must pass tests that would falsify it if it was wrong, GR has done that successfully over and over again. Yours failed at the first test, your cosmology is proven to be the myth.

George DIshman,

Michelson Morley experiment is a very bogus experiment. It shows the childishness of their mind. How can they use a mechanistic device to measure the subtle? How can they assume the aEther to be a one dimensional drift? It is is like going to a sea beach and one using a fish net to catch the wind!

Please see my paper on Nature of Space. It is the most fundamental fabric of our Universe and our Existence but ignored by Modern Physics.

Regards,

Sunil

SKS: It is like going to a sea beach and one using a fish net to catch the wind!

It was like trying to measure the speed of a river from a boat moored in the flow, it was intelligently designed and worked well (at least their second version did) and gave an accurate answer that was different to what was expected.

So you think Ether does not exist? You think Vacuum of Space is a mere Geometric Space with no Physical Properties like Super Super Fluid which can't be sensed by our Senses or Mechanistic contraptions? Please see my paper on Nature of Space. In the path of Yoga, one develops some tuning to this Ether or Prana.

GD> "For a theory to be considered valid, it must pass tests that would falsify it if it was wrong, GR has done that successfully over and over again. Yours failed at the first test, your cosmology is proven to be the myth."

Now! You are changing the criteria set by the Guru, that any scientific theory (to differentiate it from a myth) must be falsifiable. If it cannot be falsified then it is not a scientific theory, full stop!

Your new and convenient rule is, "it must pass tests that would falsify it if it was wrong". You are violating the dictum of your Guru Karl Popper. What kinds of tests and how long you must continue those tests, that would falsify it if it was wrong"? Meanwhile, you can continue your drum beat to drown out any doubt about your theories! How very convenient!

And also the mantra of Eddington and the contrived algorithm to extract the convenient data that official physics is using to "prove" the theories of relativity, will help it to "prove" those theories for all eternity, without any fail! Thus establishing the fact that these theories are myths. You cannot have it both ways! Please have a look at the following discussion: all the mighty relativists who came initially in force, are nowhere to be seen now!: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

GD> "Yours failed at the first test, your cosmology is proven to be the myth".

You have never known my theories to make any judgement; or are you a prophet with fore-sights! To start with, please see the following article that exposes the conceptual defect not only of GR (which is not a scientific theory at all), but also the time-honoured theory of Universal Gravitation of Newton, and thereby exposes the root of the myths of modern official cosmology; based on the most recent data from NASA. Happy reading!Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

LIGO for sure is a capitalistic driven fraud. The money chased demands results, even if they are not true.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_sensitivity_of_LIGO_in_terms_of_Energy_Density

AM: Now! You are changing the criteria set by the Guru, that any scientific theory (to differentiate it from a myth) must be falsifiable. If it cannot be falsified then it is not a scientific theory, full stop!

That is correct, but "falsifiable" does not mean the same as "falsified".

AM: Your new and convenient rule is, "it must pass tests that would falsify it if it was wrong".

That says the same thing, to be valid each theory must be "falsifiable but not falsified". You seem to have a problem with this subtlety of the English language.

GD> "Yours failed at the first test, your cosmology is proven to be the myth".

AM: You have never known my theories to make any judgement;

I have brought to your attention a paper that shows that the temperature of the CMB was higher in the past. If your theory can make a prediction, whether it passes or not, that satisfies Popper's criterion of falsifiability. If your theory predicts a temperature variation with time that falls within the error bars of the measurements in that paper then it will pass that test, if not it is falsified.

It's up to you to do that calculation but "steady state" theories generally predict that such measures must be the same for all time and you are right, I made an assumption that that applied to yours. If that was wrong, you could have corrected me as soon as I posted it.

GD> "It's up to you to do that calculation but "steady state" theories generally predict that such measures must be the same for all time and you are right, I made an assumption that that applied to yours. If that was wrong, you could have corrected me as soon as I posted it."

If you live like the proverbial frog in the well, you will see or know only the things you are used to - GR, Big Bang and Steady State etc.

But the universe is much bigger than you think and everything in it it is always changing with discrete qualitative leaps and so also are ideas and knowledge.

If we keep our eyes and minds closed, it can only lead to tragedies that we see around the world now.

AM: But the universe is much bigger than you think ...

I think it is probably infinite in extent, how much bigger than that do you imagine?

AM: If we keep our eyes and minds closed ...

Yes, such as ignoring the fact that the CMB temperature was higher in the past.

GD> "I think it is probably infinite in extent, how much bigger than that do you imagine?"

You absolutely have no clue about the Infinite, and neither have causality based philosophy from the early Greeks to the present and official physics since Aristotle. Max Tegmark wants to “retire” the term “Infinite” from physics; Albert Einstein started GR assuming a finite universe, because official physics and mathematics is out of depth when coming to the question of the infinite; your geometry/idealized mathematics and Machian philosophy has no meaning for the category Infinite!

Listen, Monsieur/Herr/Mr./Professor Dishman and all the rest of you official physicists since Albert Einstein; you need to be lectured to about the term “Nothing” or the Mathematical Zero and the Infinite. Ignorance of these two categories makes you lot like the proverbial frogs in the well. You have to learn about the infinite at least from the following short article: Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Or better still, a reproduction of this article with a review by Professor James Schofield, a mathematician/physicist and a polymath, at:

http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/s64home.html

The following is a copy of a comment I made recently in another RG forum: [“In my opinion these are the two icebergs where causality, mathematics, Aristotelian principle (“Unity, Opposition, and the excluded Middle") and polar category based philosophy and Einsteinian “New Physics” get their Titanic moment; in which this duo are now struggling and trying to survive. These icebergs were always there, but fortunately old philosophy and physics (because of their limits) did not have face to face encounter and avoided a shipwreck.

But dialectically speaking, this shipwreck, tragic as it seems; offers the opportunity and scope to discover new world of great promise by giving up on the old perspective of limited vision! Only by adopting the life-saver materialist dialectics can humanity and physics swim way from this shipwreck to safety!

For dialectics, “Nothing” or Zero, which is the bugbear of old epistemology, mathematics and physics; is as rich in content as “Being” itself! The "Negation" for dialectics is the very source of creation! The "negative" is as much powerful as the positive – “the portentous power of the negative” for Hegel. The “Nothing” – the quantum vacuum of the Virtual Particles (dialectical Being-Nothing) is the source and sink of all that exists in this Infinite universe ; consisting of atoms, molecules, life, planets, suns, nebulae, galaxies, clusters and super-super clusters of galaxies; all of which are in the dynamic process of “coming into being and passing out of existence”. Dialectics thus connects the micro-world of the quanta to the macro-world of the galaxies. The phenomenology of the universe for eternity is sustained by the living process of “change”. Quantitative change giving rise to qualitative leaps and vice versa at all level of existence in this Infinite and Eternal universe.

The “Nothing” (zero or śūnya in sanskrit) and the “Almost Nothing” (the infinitesimals of calculus) in a historical and dialectical sense, represent the gateway and the highway respectively for the evolution of mathematics in particular and the universe in general. The evolution of mathematics beyond Greek geometry and the description of motion denied by Parmenedes and Zeno, was possible only after the discovery of zero and only because of the contradiction that zero is itself and something else at the same time. “If you look at zero you see nothing; but look through it and you will see the world. For zero (“Nothing”) brings into focus the great, organic sprawl of mathematics, and mathematics in turn the complex nature of things … But neither now will (it) ever be finished. Always beckoning, approached but never achieved: perhaps this comes closest to the nature of zero”. Robert Kaplan, “The Nothing That Is", Oxford Univ. Press, 2000.

Only if the shipwrecked and “drowning” New Physics tightly clutches on to the life-raft, namely materialist dialectics, will it be able to reach the new lands of possibility and promise. The following references reflect the humble attempts by this amateur philosopher/scientist in that direction:]

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

Article The Nothing That Really Is! Dialectical Contradictions in Ma...

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

AM: Listen, Monsieur/Herr/Mr./Professor Dishman and all the rest of you official physicists since Albert Einstein; you need to be lectured to about the term “Nothing” ....

Not by someone like you who knows nothing of the subject. The temperature of the CMB was higher in the past, that is a simple fact and you cannot cope with even that.

Good luck with your studies, it may take some time.

GD> "The temperature of the CMB was higher in the past,"

You absolutely have no idea Sir, that in an Infinite, Eternal and ever-changing universe, "CMB was higher in the past" has no meaning at all. Official physics has contrived this "evidence"(like other cosmic claims) to fit the requirement of the Big Bang theology; in an otherwise "perfect isotropic picture of the universe" discovered in 1965, by accident! Please read the following article (that my friend (Late) Chip Arp termed as "superb") to gain some REAL knowledge, if you wish: Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Otherwise, good luck and enjoy your frog-like life in the potential well of make-belief GR Gospel. Heidou!

How do we know CMB is a constant, variable or a function over time? It could be the sum visible ""all rest of" Universe from the distant sources which we can see furthest? And it will remain like that - overall - for a long period of time? How do we know for sure that it is the radiation escaped event when matter stopped being Plasma and the photons escaped just a little after that?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_Slipher_Prematurely_Determined_Receding_Galaxies

AM: Official physics has contrived this "evidence"

You said it your self:

AM: If you live like the proverbial frog in the well, you will see or know only the things you are used to ...

Instruments don't lie, the temperature was higher in the past.

SKS: How do we know CMB is a constant, variable or a function over time?

Read the paper I cited above.

SKS: It could be the sum visible "all rest of" Universe from the distant sources which we can see furthest?

No, you only have to look at the spectrum of a typical galaxy to see that is not possible.

George,

Can you please repost the paper you talk? The thread is very long.

Dear Sunil,

This is the one I quoted, I have seen other similar papers in the past which you could research.

Article The evolution of the cosmic microwave background temperature...

Thanks George.

The proof it can last the current age of the Universe lays in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), and that it has lasted at least 13.7bn years. In theory however, this is not forever as when the CMB (currently 2.725 K) reaches temperatures of absolute zero it will have effectively dissipated completely.

Andrew Worsley

Hi Andrew, CMBR is the "Zero-Point" energy in an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe mandated by Dialectics and the Uncertainty Principle. It can never reach absolute zero.

You are assuming an expanding universe starting from a so-called "Big Bang" 13.7bn years ago; which is a false assumption based on mathematical idealism. "Expansion" has no meaning in an infinite universe! Please see my letter to "Nature: News-Blog", copy shown high up in this thread.

Regards, Abdul

Dear Abdul,

AM: CMBR is the "Zero-Point" energy ..

The CMB has a thermal spectrum, "zero point energy" does not.

"Zero point energy" would be a property of the vacuum so would be constant through time, the CMB has been cooling and the higher temperature in the past matches the expansion predicted by the Friedman Equations.

In fact "zero point energy" has the right properties to be what is called "dark energy" or the "cosmological constant" other than being ~120 orders of magnitude higher than is observed.