Questions about the inverse square law and dark matter

Gustavo Broos wrote in news:f6b186f9-5c8e-4f41-b82a-
:
[snip all]

I think we can all agree you don't know what the hell you are talking
about.

On 19 juil, 00:42, eric gisse wrote:
Gustavo Broos wrote in news:f6b186f9-5c8e-4f41-b82a-
:
[snip all]

I think we can all agree you don't know what the hell you are talking
about.

What I'm saying about the CMB is that what we see is the projection of
a more complex 3D structure, now if it is not I would like to know the
explanation. The recombination and last scattering happened in 3D
space, didn't it?

So we count the amount of electromagnetic radiation coming from the
CMB in each point of the sky (approximated to pixels), but that being
the projection of a more complex structure in 3D, how is each point
compensated for radiation coming from different depths in the z axis?

Now imagine that our unit to measure radiation in the sky is one pixel
in our measurement apparatus. If a cube of matter generating CMB
radiation goes back in the z axis, at first we will have our measuring
unit registering always the same brightness (if there is no
extinction, for simplicity). Far enough, it will project to an area
smaller than our measuring unit, registering less brightness than
before. So the point is: how do we compensate for that? Imagine we
have different sized cubes of CMB-generating matter for our measuring
pixel, and we play sending them back different distances, how do you
know how much matter you've got?

P.S.
In my second post I said that the "excess term" ("3D metric" in the
original post) tends to zero if the patch in the sky being detected
tends to a point, but that is not true for the z axis component of the
term (and it could be of greater order of magnitude than the "normal"
inverse square law term, if what we measure goes deep back in the z
axis). The CMB is very isotropic, so the equations may be a good
approximation to a possible "measurement interpretation error", which
is the point of the original post.

Now let me go wild again and ask if the "excess term", in the original
post, applied to the CMB radiation could mean something about how deep
what we measure is?

Dear Gustavo Broos:

On Jul 19, 2:23*am, Gustavo Broos wrote:
On 19 juil, 00:42, eric gisse wrote:

Gustavo Broos wrote in news:f6b186f9-5c8e-4f41-b82a-
:
[snip all]

I think we can all agree you don't know what the hell
you are talking about.

What I'm saying about the CMB is that what we see is
the projection of a more complex 3D structure,

Based on what crystal ball? You are making assumptions based on a
cosmological model not in evidence.

now if it is not I would like to know the explanation.

A Universe filling "cloud" of opaque hydrogen plasma, with an
extinction coefficient of about 3 parsecs (if I recall George
Dishman's calculations correctly). Roughly meaning we cannot see more
than 15 or so parsecs into it, unless a supernovae is involved (which
observation would require much finer resolution than what we've had so
far.

The recombination and last scattering happened in 3D
space, didn't it?

It has appeared, and will appear to each point in the Universe, as a
"sheet" or "curtain" at a fixed radius. This represents an "instant"
in time, after which recombination terminated the release of light,
and the medium changing state to transparency in optical and near
optical wavelengths.

We think you need to tell us what you'd be looking for, when the
instruments that can see the CMBR, could not resolve the Mily Way
galaxy, and might even miss the Virgo supercluster.

"Here Be Dragons" is already taken...

David A. Smith