Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

If every wave over the period of several days which was observed
through the telescope to have been added to the pulse counter with
the transmitter clock, has not been received at the tower top
checkpoint, it's going to be damn hard to explain where they went.


They went nowhere. They simply are still on their way to the top.


That is absolutely absurd.


This may sound absurd to you, but it is the way the universe
works.


Maybe in your universe, but not in mine.

I thought we live in the same.

And now stop obfuscating, finally read up on how the Pound-Rebka
experiment was *actually* done, and address the results.


The zero origin universe
is very specific in setting the parameters for all existence,

And what on earth is that supposed to mean?


in contrast with the big bang universe which is still waiting for
someone to tell it how it works.

How what works? The universe? Thanks, we know that already quite well.


[snip]


You will also agree that
there are no limitations on how long a continuous wavetrain can be?
An unbroken wavetrain one light year in length can be generated in
an atomic clock, and that signal can be amplified so that it can be
transmitted to the top of the tower and beyond. It is clearly no
different to the wavetrain generated in the iron sample.

Agreed, but relativity teaches us that both length and time
are relative concepts. Different observers will measure
different lengths and different times.


It also teaches us to believe in some things that are
counter-intuitive.

Indeed. Physics has teached us for several hundred years now. E.g.
it has teached us the counter-intuitive fact that the Earth goes round
the sun.


But that's certainly not an uncommon practice.
Somewhere along the line a wave of truth must start rolling across
this planet because bull**** can't be piled up indefinitely.

Is this an insinuation that relativity is bull****?


[snip]



No, they are not in limbo. You are just confusing yourself
by calculating the length of the missing wave train, which does
not have any physical meaning. What has a physical meaning is
that the clock on the ground is running slow according to the
clock on the satellite. This is an observed phenomenon, which
is corrected for in the GPS satellite. You may argue against
this as much as you like, but it does not change the way nature
or GPS works.


I've never argued against the fact that clocks run at different
rates at different altitudes. But I do reject any theory which
predicts that a wavetrain length will undergo permanent change
when it's climbing out of a gravity well.

Address the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment. After you finally
managed to read up on how it was actually done.


The conclusion drawn from
the Pound and Rebka experiment could have gone either way,

No, it couldn't. Finally read up on how it was actually done, please.


but the
natural choice was to go along with the theory of the day. The
atomic clock scenario falsifies the chosen conclusion.

It does do nothing like that.


The clock at the tower base is seen to be running slower according
to the time rate in the clock at the tower top, because it *is*
running slower.

You are still ignoring the gravitational redshift, I see.


When the wavetrain transmitted from the tower base
clock passes by the top clock, it will pass by at exactly the same
frequency as that indicated on the LCD attached to and driven by
the tower base clock. That's not difficult to falsify.

It was falsified by Pound and Rebka. Finally read up on how the
experiment was actually done, please.


Bye,
Bjoern

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

If it's not a blackbody spectrum, how do you want to define the
temperature?


The temperature of an era can be represented by the wavelength
of the most copiously generated E/M transmission at the time.
The evolution of the universe can be plotted along the scale of
increasing temperatures for the most copiously emitted wavelengths.


This is wrong on several accounts. Firstly it has
been pointed out to you several times already that the
universe is cooling down, not heating up, and this is
supported by observations of molecules at high redshifts.
Your claim that this is due to that the background
becomes cooler because the local universe is heating up
does not make any sense, because we can measure the
temperature of the microwave black body radiation both
locally, in our galaxy, and at high redshifts using
molecules in our galaxy, and at high redshifts, respectively,
and they show that the universe is at least not heating
up.


There's no point trying to understand a consequence of the zero
origin universe while you're standing in the big bang universe.

We are simply pointing out what the *observations* say. Not what the
theory says.

Address the observations, please.


It's just not possible. The observed redshift per distance is the
conclusive proof that the universe was colder in the past.

Why on earth do you think so?


In the zero origin universe, there is no expansion.

Explain the fact that the surface brightness of galaxies decreases
with (1+z)^4. Explain the fact that supernova light curve width
increase with (1+z). Explain the fact that the temperature of the CMBR
in distant galaxies is measured to be higher by a factor (1+z). Etc.


The higher the redshift the colder the universe.

Unsupported assertion.


[snip]


http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/~cyclwav.jpg
The purple graph is the usual CMBR plot, but the frequency scale
is non linear, so it appears to be reversed. The black graph is
plotted according to emissive power per wavelength, where the
wavelength scale is linear. It's still exactly the same scale of
course. Multipliers are used to align the peaks of the power
spectrums. Can you see the difference now? Can you see that they
are both equally valid plots of a 2.73 K blackbody radiator?


You are not supposed to plot a curve which shows power
per wave length together with one that show power per
frequency, and it is not possible to fix it just by
re-scaling the wave length axis. If anyone has
introduced a fiddle factor in this discussion it is you.


I concede that the wavelength plots shown for the two curves are not
directly comparable in the way that I chose to compare them, but
there are no restrictions whatever on what scale I choose for either
or both graph plots.

Huh? Please read Ulf's argument again. Try to understand it this time.


If I'm plotting spectral energy density per
wavelength I obviously can't use the same formula applicable to
emissive power per wavelength. The two plots are describing
different views of a blacbody radiator, that's all.

Yes, and it makes no sense at all to show them in one and the same plot.


One is from the
outside looking in, while the other is from the inside looking out,
if I can put is so bluntly.

Care to explain that "blunt" statement further? Inside and outside of
*what*?



Bye,
Bjoern

Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Because the dipole is taking the same picture of the cosmic
background as the monopole, by default it has the same spectrum as
the monopole. Apart from its power spectrum falling a long way short
of the all sky spectrum, the only difference is that the entire
spectrum has been slightly red or blue shifted depending on which
way the dipole is being measured. What I can't understand is why
the following dipole graph, which was plotted with the raw dipole
data set, shows such an enormous blue shift. The peak of its
spectrum has been shifted to that of a 3.4 K radiator. That
represents a substantial velocity relative to the cosmic background,
doesn't it?

It has been pointed out to you before that you are mixing up
curves showing intensity per wave length and intensity per
frequency. The intensity per wavelength curve has a maximum
at wave length lambda_m, and the intensity per frequency curve
has a maximum at the frequency, nu_m, but these two are *not*
related through, lambda_m = c/nu_m, and therefore you cannot
compare the two curves simply by re-scaling the x-axis. The
entire shapes of the two curves are different as I pointed
in a previous posting.

I can plot spectral energy density per frequency, and I can plot
spectral energy density per wavelength. Swapping between frequency
and wavelength doesn't alter anything because the two properties
of the single entity are inseparable. Are you suggesting that the
frequency component and the wavelength are different, that they
cover different ranges of the spectrum? I'm not too sure just what
you are suggesting, but I can certainly swap between frequency and
wavelength on the graph scale and not change anything, not even
the graph's appearance. The zero mark for the scale goes to
infinity, on one end or the other, depending on how the scale is
set, but so what? Does that invalidate the graph plot?

The same applies if I plot a curve using emissive power per
wavelength or emissive power per frequency to describe the output
from a normal blackbody enclosure. If the x-axis is re-scaled,
nothing changes except the numbers on the scale. But I can't
directly compare between a normal blackbody plot and a spectral
energy density plot, as you say. Even so, the conversion between
emissive power per wavelength and spectral energy density is done
with very simple and logical multipliers. Why do you suggest that
such a move is taboo?

For a specific blackbody temperature enclosure, the square root of
pi times any wavelength in that spectrum will find the equivalent
wavelength on a spectral energy density plot, while the square root
of the power attributed to that blackbody wavelength identifies the
power attribute for the spectral energy density wavelength relative
to the rest of that spectrum. The entire power spectrum of the
blackbody enclosure plot can be elevated to the scale of the
spectral energy density realm and can, using appropriate multipliers
now be directly compared.

The logic that I used to plot the CMBR curve for the zero origin
universe resulted in a curve which resembled a curve generated from
a normal blackbody enclosure because it was plotted assuming that
the eternal distance between now and the origin was a linear
measurement, which it clearly is not. It was difficult enough to
explain that reasoning without the added complexity of trying to
explain how the CMBR would arrive from a solid angle back in time
to the origin. Multiplying each wavelength of the zero origin
spectrum by pi^.5 and changing the power attribute of each by
power^.5 to reset the curve shape to align with the spectral energy
density requirement, produces a curve comparison which is much the
same as the original curve comparison, as should be expected.

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb5-05y.jpg is a graph plotted
accordingly. I can of course plot the same graph using an x-scale
where frequency is linear, and *it will still be just as valid as
any other CMBR graph plot*.

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Because the dipole is taking the same picture of the cosmic
background as the monopole, by default it has the same spectrum as
the monopole. Apart from its power spectrum falling a long way short
of the all sky spectrum, the only difference is that the entire
spectrum has been slightly red or blue shifted depending on which
way the dipole is being measured. What I can't understand is why
the following dipole graph, which was plotted with the raw dipole
data set, shows such an enormous blue shift. The peak of its
spectrum has been shifted to that of a 3.4 K radiator. That
represents a substantial velocity relative to the cosmic background,
doesn't it?


It has been pointed out to you before that you are mixing up
curves showing intensity per wave length and intensity per
frequency. The intensity per wavelength curve has a maximum
at wave length lambda_m, and the intensity per frequency curve
has a maximum at the frequency, nu_m, but these two are *not*
related through, lambda_m = c/nu_m, and therefore you cannot
compare the two curves simply by re-scaling the x-axis. The
entire shapes of the two curves are different as I pointed
in a previous posting.


I can plot spectral energy density per frequency, and I can plot
spectral energy density per wavelength. Swapping between frequency
and wavelength doesn't alter anything because the two properties
of the single entity are inseparable. Are you suggesting that the
frequency component and the wavelength are different, that they
cover different ranges of the spectrum? I'm not too sure just what
you are suggesting, but I can certainly swap between frequency and
wavelength on the graph scale and not change anything, not even
the graph's appearance.

I have been going through this in detail before, but let me
repeat this. Consider the enerrgy density per wavelength,
rho_lambda with the unit J/m3/m, and energy density per
frequency unit, rho_nu with the unit J/m3/Hz. Now we look at
a narrow wavelength band, d lambda, and the corresponding
narrow frequency band d nu The energy density in this band
can be written as rho_lambda d lambda or rho_nu d nu. These
two quantities must obviously be the same, so we have

rho_lambda d_lambda = rho_nu d_nu

Therefore rho_nu = rho_lambda d lambda/d nu, so assume that
you want to plot rho_lambda in the same diagram as you plot
rho_nu, then not only will you have to re-calculate lambda
using nu = c/lambda, but you also have to rescale
rho_lambda by multiplying with d lambda/d nu. If you fail
to do this you will find that the two curves have different
shapes and in particular that their maxima do not coincide.
From your figures it looks like that you have failed to
carry out the latter operation.

The zero mark for the scale goes to
infinity, on one end or the other, depending on how the scale is
set, but so what? Does that invalidate the graph plot?

The same applies if I plot a curve using emissive power per
wavelength or emissive power per frequency to describe the output
from a normal blackbody enclosure. If the x-axis is re-scaled,
nothing changes except the numbers on the scale. But I can't
directly compare between a normal blackbody plot and a spectral
energy density plot, as you say. Even so, the conversion between
emissive power per wavelength and spectral energy density is done
with very simple and logical multipliers. Why do you suggest that
such a move is taboo?

For a specific blackbody temperature enclosure, the square root of
pi times any wavelength in that spectrum will find the equivalent
wavelength on a spectral energy density plot, while the square root
of the power attributed to that blackbody wavelength identifies the
power attribute for the spectral energy density wavelength relative
to the rest of that spectrum.

What are you talking about? The square root of a power is not
a power. They do not have the same units!

The entire power spectrum of the
blackbody enclosure plot can be elevated to the scale of the
spectral energy density realm and can, using appropriate multipliers
now be directly compared.

It sounds to me like that you are now mixing up the
spectrum of black body radiation, with the Fourier
analys of the fluctuations of the microwave background
fluctuations. The power spectrum you can derive in
the latter case does not have anything to do with
the usual spectrum of the black body radiation.

The logic that I used to plot the CMBR curve for the zero origin
universe resulted in a curve which resembled a curve generated from
a normal blackbody enclosure because it was plotted assuming that
the eternal distance between now and the origin was a linear
measurement, which it clearly is not.

What is "the eternal distance"?

It was difficult enough to
explain that reasoning without the added complexity of trying to
explain how the CMBR would arrive from a solid angle back in time
to the origin. Multiplying each wavelength of the zero origin
spectrum by pi^.5 and changing the power attribute of each by
power^.5 to reset the curve shape to align with the spectral energy
density requirement, produces a curve comparison which is much the
same as the original curve comparison, as should be expected.

I am afraid that this does not make any physical sense.
We have a saying in Swedish, which very freely could be
translated as "What is vaguely expressed comes from vague
thoughts". I think this very much applies to this thread.

Ulf Torkelsson

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
------
------

You will also agree that
there are no limitations on how long a continuous wavetrain can be?
An unbroken wavetrain one light year in length can be generated in
an atomic clock, and that signal can be amplified so that it can be
transmitted to the top of the tower and beyond. It is clearly no
different to the wavetrain generated in the iron sample.

Agreed, but relativity teaches us that both length and time
are relative concepts. Different observers will measure
different lengths and different times.


It also teaches us to believe in some things that are
counter-intuitive.

Indeed. Physics has teached us for several hundred years now. E.g.
it has teached us the counter-intuitive fact that the Earth goes round
the sun.


But that's certainly not an uncommon practice.
Somewhere along the line a wave of truth must start rolling across
this planet because bull**** can't be piled up indefinitely.

Is this an insinuation that relativity is bull****?

Anything counter-intuitive is a potential blob on the pile.
If the shoe fits ??
------
------

I've never argued against the fact that clocks run at different
rates at different altitudes. But I do reject any theory which
predicts that a wavetrain length will undergo permanent change
when it's climbing out of a gravity well.

Address the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment. After you finally
managed to read up on how it was actually done.


The conclusion drawn from
the Pound and Rebka experiment could have gone either way,

No, it couldn't. Finally read up on how it was actually done, please.


but the
natural choice was to go along with the theory of the day. The
atomic clock scenario falsifies the chosen conclusion.

It does do nothing like that.


The clock at the tower base is seen to be running slower according
to the time rate in the clock at the tower top, because it *is*
running slower.

You are still ignoring the gravitational redshift, I see.

The gravitational redshift will show up in the clock rate difference
between the tower base clock and the tower top clock. From the top
of the tower, the tick rate of the tower base clock is proven in the
direct visual reading of numbers displayed on the screen of the LCD
attached to the base clock, which were generated from that clock's
tick rate. The propagation of the image of the numbers shown on the
screen cannot be redshifted to a different set of numbers enroute
to the top clock. The base clock is seen to be running slower
compared to the top clock. The clocks were of course previously
synchronized at the tower top.

Now replace the clocks with two radioactive iron samples which
generate identical frequencies when compared adjacent anywhere.
Placing one sample at the tower base and the other at the tower top
will set up exactly the same frequency difference that was present
between the two Cs clocks. Or perhaps the frequencies generated in
the iron samples are still identical and the lesser frequency is
only due to energy lost from the photons as they climb from the
gravity well up to the tower top. That would certainly find a spot
on the aforementioned pile, wouldn't it?


When the wavetrain transmitted from the tower base
clock passes by the top clock, it will pass by at exactly the same
frequency as that indicated on the LCD attached to and driven by
the tower base clock. That's not difficult to falsify.

It was falsified by Pound and Rebka. Finally read up on how the
experiment was actually done, please.

You seem to be purposely missing the point.

-----

Max Keon

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
The temperature of an era can be represented by the wavelength
of the most copiously generated E/M transmission at the time.
The evolution of the universe can be plotted along the scale of
increasing temperatures for the most copiously emitted wavelengths.


This is wrong on several accounts. Firstly it has
been pointed out to you several times already that the
universe is cooling down, not heating up, and this is
supported by observations of molecules at high redshifts.
Your claim that this is due to that the background
becomes cooler because the local universe is heating up
does not make any sense, because we can measure the
temperature of the microwave black body radiation both
locally, in our galaxy, and at high redshifts using
molecules in our galaxy, and at high redshifts, respectively,
and they show that the universe is at least not heating
up.


There's no point trying to understand a consequence of the zero
origin universe while you're standing in the big bang universe.

We are simply pointing out what the *observations* say. Not what the
theory says.

Address the observations, please.


It's just not possible. The observed redshift per distance is the
conclusive proof that the universe was colder in the past.

Why on earth do you think so?


In the zero origin universe, there is no expansion.

Explain the fact that the surface brightness of galaxies decreases
with (1+z)^4.

From your viewpoint in the big bang universe, the initial
temperature of the visible universe was 4000 degrees K, and due to
the expansion of space in the 13.7 billion years from just after
the bang up until now, the 4000 K temperature has finally reduced
to almost zero. So, what you are telling me is that the 4000 K
temperature should, in the local universe, be 4000^.25 = 8 K.
However, from my viewpoint in the zero origin universe, the
temperature of the era (which you assume to be a meager 13.77E+9
light years in the past) is exactly as it now appears. *It was
colder back then*.

Explain the fact that supernova light curve width
increase with (1+z).

The only way that can happen in your expanding universe is for the
light curve width to remain constant (from your viewpoint in the
present) for every supernova event since the big bang. Which is a
bit surprising to me in the zero origin universe because it sets
specific localized evolution parameters before the explosion can
occur, regardless of where the rest of the universe is on the
evolutionary scale. The supernova would certainly demolish the
gravity well from whence it came, and reset that local evolutionary
balance back with the rest of the universe.

Explain the fact that the temperature of the CMBR
in distant galaxies is measured to be higher by a factor (1+z). Etc.

You apply a redshift component that maximizes right on the big bang
and then reduce it at a linear rate to the present, and claim to
have found proof of a cooling universe?????


The higher the redshift the colder the universe.

Unsupported assertion.

Only if one chooses to live in a big bang universe.
It is clearly observed in the zero origin universe.

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:


The gravitational redshift will show up in the clock rate difference
between the tower base clock and the tower top clock. From the top
of the tower, the tick rate of the tower base clock is proven in the
direct visual reading of numbers displayed on the screen of the LCD
attached to the base clock, which were generated from that clock's
tick rate. The propagation of the image of the numbers shown on the
screen cannot be redshifted to a different set of numbers enroute
to the top clock. The base clock is seen to be running slower
compared to the top clock. The clocks were of course previously
synchronized at the tower top.

Now replace the clocks with two radioactive iron samples which
generate identical frequencies when compared adjacent anywhere.

Yes, we agree on this, and furthermore the paragraph
above even tells us that this frequency will always be
the same.

Placing one sample at the tower base and the other at the tower top
will set up exactly the same frequency difference that was present
between the two Cs clocks.

I hope we all agree on that this is correct.

Or perhaps the frequencies generated in
the iron samples are still identical and the lesser frequency is
only due to energy lost from the photons as they climb from the
gravity well up to the tower top.

But this is inaccurate, though not wrong. We can take
the frequency as measured at the bottom of the tower and
the frequency as measured at the top of the tower, and
plug them both into Plancks law to calculate the energy
of the photons. We then find that the energy difference
is the same as the change in the potential energy for a
particle of mass m = E/c^2. This is a nice example of
the internal consistency of physics. It does not
matter which way we calculate a certain physical effect,
we will always get the same answer. If that was not
the case we would have a chaotic universe in which
we would not be able to predict anything.

Ulf Torkelsson

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


From your viewpoint in the big bang universe, the initial
temperature of the visible universe was 4000 degrees K, and due to
the expansion of space in the 13.7 billion years from just after
the bang up until now, the 4000 K temperature has finally reduced
to almost zero. So, what you are telling me is that the 4000 K
temperature should, in the local universe, be 4000^.25 = 8 K.

No, this is not what the big bang model says. It says
that a few hundred thousand years after the big bang the
universe had become sufficiently cool, about 4000 K, that
the electrons could combine with the atomic nuclei to
form atoms. At that time the universe becomes transparent
to electromagnetic radiation. Since then the universe
has expanded by a factor 1300, and consequently the
temperature of the universe has dropped to 4000/1300 = 3 K.

However, from my viewpoint in the zero origin universe, the
temperature of the era (which you assume to be a meager 13.77E+9
light years in the past) is exactly as it now appears. *It was
colder back then*.

There are two problems with this viewpoint. Firstly
there is no explanation of why the universe would today
have a temperature of 3 K rather than anything else.
Secondly, as I have pointed out before, we can observe
molecules at high redshifts and they behave as the
universe was hotter back then, and certainly not as
if the universe was colder back then.


Explain the fact that supernova light curve width
increase with (1+z).


The only way that can happen in your expanding universe is for the
light curve width to remain constant (from your viewpoint in the
present) for every supernova event since the big bang. Which is a
bit surprising to me in the zero origin universe because it sets
specific localized evolution parameters before the explosion can
occur, regardless of where the rest of the universe is on the
evolutionary scale.

It may be surprising to you, but the time scale
of the supernova is set by the physical laws
describing the supernova explosion. Since the
laws of physics have always been the same the
time scale of the supernova explosion has always
been the same, but then we observe this light
curve expanded since the universe itself is
expanding.

Ulf Torkelsson

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

------
------


You will also agree that
there are no limitations on how long a continuous wavetrain can be?
An unbroken wavetrain one light year in length can be generated in
an atomic clock, and that signal can be amplified so that it can be
transmitted to the top of the tower and beyond. It is clearly no
different to the wavetrain generated in the iron sample.

Agreed, but relativity teaches us that both length and time
are relative concepts. Different observers will measure
different lengths and different times.


It also teaches us to believe in some things that are
counter-intuitive.


Indeed. Physics has teached us for several hundred years now. E.g.
it has teached us the counter-intuitive fact that the Earth goes round
the sun.


But that's certainly not an uncommon practice.
Somewhere along the line a wave of truth must start rolling across
this planet because bull**** can't be piled up indefinitely.


Is this an insinuation that relativity is bull****?


Anything counter-intuitive is a potential blob on the pile.

See my comment above wrt counter-intuitive things in physics. You
apparently chose to ignore that.


[snip]


I've never argued against the fact that clocks run at different
rates at different altitudes. But I do reject any theory which
predicts that a wavetrain length will undergo permanent change
when it's climbing out of a gravity well.


Address the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment. After you finally
managed to read up on how it was actually done.

I see you don't bother to read up how it was actually done.



The conclusion drawn from
the Pound and Rebka experiment could have gone either way,

No, it couldn't. Finally read up on how it was actually done, please.

I see you don't bother to read up how it was actually done.


but the
natural choice was to go along with the theory of the day. The
atomic clock scenario falsifies the chosen conclusion.

It does do nothing like that.


The clock at the tower base is seen to be running slower according
to the time rate in the clock at the tower top, because it *is*
running slower.


You are still ignoring the gravitational redshift, I see.


The gravitational redshift will show up in the clock rate difference
between the tower base clock and the tower top clock.


Before making claims about what hypothetical experiments *would* show,
please first read up how the *actual* experiment was done, and what
its results are.


[snip a lot of obfuscation]


When the wavetrain transmitted from the tower base
clock passes by the top clock, it will pass by at exactly the same
frequency as that indicated on the LCD attached to and driven by
the tower base clock. That's not difficult to falsify.


It was falsified by Pound and Rebka. Finally read up on how the
experiment was actually done, please.


You seem to be purposely missing the point.

You seem to be purposely ignoring the actual experiment.


Bye,
Bjoern

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

The temperature of an era can be represented by the wavelength
of the most copiously generated E/M transmission at the time.
The evolution of the universe can be plotted along the scale of
increasing temperatures for the most copiously emitted wavelengths.


This is wrong on several accounts. Firstly it has
been pointed out to you several times already that the
universe is cooling down, not heating up, and this is
supported by observations of molecules at high redshifts.
Your claim that this is due to that the background
becomes cooler because the local universe is heating up
does not make any sense, because we can measure the
temperature of the microwave black body radiation both
locally, in our galaxy, and at high redshifts using
molecules in our galaxy, and at high redshifts, respectively,
and they show that the universe is at least not heating
up.

There's no point trying to understand a consequence of the zero
origin universe while you're standing in the big bang universe.


We are simply pointing out what the *observations* say. Not what the
theory says.

Address the observations, please.

I see you don't bother to address the observations.


It's just not possible. The observed redshift per distance is the
conclusive proof that the universe was colder in the past.

Why on earth do you think so?

Care to explain?



In the zero origin universe, there is no expansion.

Explain the fact that the surface brightness of galaxies decreases
with (1+z)^4.

What you write below has nothing to do with explaining that fact.



From your viewpoint in the big bang universe, the initial
temperature of the visible universe was 4000 degrees K,

Why do you think so? Where did you get that number from?


and due to
the expansion of space in the 13.7 billion years from just after
the bang up until now, the 4000 K temperature has finally reduced
to almost zero. So, what you are telling me is that the 4000 K
temperature should, in the local universe, be 4000^.25 = 8 K.

Where on Earth did you get the factor .25 from?


However, from my viewpoint in the zero origin universe, the
temperature of the era (which you assume to be a meager 13.77E+9
light years in the past) is exactly as it now appears. *It was
colder back then*.

Explain the evidence which shows otherwise.



Explain the fact that supernova light curve width
increase with (1+z).

I notice you did not explain that below.




The only way that can happen in your expanding universe is for the
light curve width to remain constant (from your viewpoint in the
present)

Roughly constant, indeed. There are some variations observed, but they
are quite small.


for every supernova event since the big bang.

No, merely for the supernovae of population II stars.


Which is a
bit surprising to me in the zero origin universe because it sets
specific localized evolution parameters before the explosion can
occur, regardless of where the rest of the universe is on the
evolutionary scale. The supernova would certainly demolish the
gravity well from whence it came, and reset that local evolutionary
balance back with the rest of the universe.

Incomprehensible.




Explain the fact that the temperature of the CMBR
in distant galaxies is measured to be higher by a factor (1+z). Etc.


You apply a redshift component that maximizes right on the big bang
and then reduce it at a linear rate to the present, and claim to
have found proof of a cooling universe?????

Incomprehensible.

What is a "redshift component", and how does one "apply" it? What do
you mean with "reduce it at a linear rate to the present"?

And what has that to do with fact that the temperature of the CMBR in
distant galaxies is measured to be higher by a factor (1+z)?



The higher the redshift the colder the universe.

Unsupported assertion.


Only if one chooses to live in a big bang universe.

It is a *fact* that you have not supported your assertion so far.


It is clearly observed in the zero origin universe.

What is *observed* directly is only the redshift. All else is
interpretation. Please tell me how you arrived at your interpretation
above.


Bye,
Bjoern