So what exactly is the CMB?

[Michael Mozina]

I've posted on this topic in the past, but it's worth revisiting this topic in light of the numerous recent conflicts between the LCDM model and high redshift observations. Astronomers keep pointing to the CMB as "evidence" to support the big bang model. So is that really true?

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF

The first thing that one needs to understand about the cosmic microwave background is that attempts to estimate the average background temperature of "space" *long* predated the "big bang" concept. Eddington included such a calculation in his book "The Internal Constitution of the Stars", first published in 1926. The last chapter of this book is called “Diffuse Matter in Space” in which he uses the density of starlight to estimate the average temperature of "space" to be 3.18 degrees, within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature. Guillaume came up with a similar figure about 30 years earlier based on the same density of starlight concept.

By comparison, the first attempt to estimate the background temperature of space based upon the big bang theory was originally off by more than an entire order of magnitude! It took big banger three or four tries to get any closer to the correct background temperature of space than Eddington. So when LCDM proponents talk about how the big bang model "predicts" the background temperature of space, they're actually talking about *postdicting* the right number, whereas it was correctly "predicted" based on ordinary starlight, without any need of a "bang" of any sort. So much for that particular issue being a "big deal". It's not a big deal, in fact if we went by actual "predictive" value, the static universe model used by Eddington was *far* better at actually predicting the correct temperature of space.

The whole story of the CMB is a bit more complicated because all stars emit microwave radiation. In fact the universe has *lots* of different "backgrounds", from gamma ray backgrounds down to microwaves and radio waves, and all of them are directly related to stellar output, absorption and scattering. Here for instance is a ROSAT x-ray image of the universe:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0008/x ... sat110.jpg

The thing to notice about any background image that since all stars emit x-rays and all other wavelengths, our own galaxy is highly visible in virtually all background images. In this case you can see the emissions from the stars in our galaxy as well as scattering taking place on the dust around the galaxy. Virtually all "background" images show the same types of galactic features in that respect, including raw cosmic microwave images.

For comparison, here's a raw microwave image from Planck:

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-conten ... ll-sky.jpg

Again, we see that the stars in our own galaxy are much brighter than the actual background and the dust around our own galaxy is very prominent in the raw images. That's because every single sun emits microwaves and radio waves, just like every other wavelength. Here for instance is a microwave image of our own sun:

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/S ... owave.html

Notice that the surface of the sun is *far* brighter than the darker "background".

So how are the "processed" microwave background images from Planck supposedly so "smooth"? They essentially have to "filter out" all of the foreground parts of the raw images that are related to our own galaxy, and local galaxies to first remove those features from the images. What's left? What's left in the heavily processed images are all the microwaves from all the suns and all the galaxies from every other point source in the whole universe scattering around in the dust of spacetime. Even in heavily filtered images, what we end up with are "hot spots" related to galaxy clusters, and "cold spots" where less galaxies/suns reside. There's really no great mystery as to how astronomers get such a "smooth" microwave background. It's because they're filtering the hell out of it to make it smooth!

In short the CMB is just another ordinary background produced by countless numbers of suns and galaxies in the universe scattering around in the plasma and dust of spacetime. The overall average temperature of spacetime is *far better predicted* without a bang than with one. In short, the CMB doesn't favor a bang theory, rather it simply demonstrates that if you filter the hell out of any background image you can get a pretty smooth image. So what?

The CMB is absolutely *not* the smoking gun that proves the big bang theory. That is utter nonsense. The CMB is nothing more than a heavily processed set of images in the final analysis that easily correspond to stellar output as any image of our own sun, and any raw image clearly demonstrates.

[Cargo]

I offer MeerKAT image of the Milky Way in Radio Wavelengths.

http://www.sciencealert.com/images/2018 ... b_1024.jpg

[crawler]

What exactly is the CMB? Herouni in 1988 showed that it is exactly zero.

Herouni in Armenia in 1988 using a 54 m dia hemispheric antenna measured a CMBR of 0.0 K for wavelength 8 mm (but this might have included down to 1 mm)(i cant remember)(i don't understand blackbody radiation). This was based on a self noise of 2.6 K & a cosmic reading of 2.6 K. If the CMBR was 2.7 K then the reading should have been 5.3 K. The self noise of 2.6 K gives a sensitivity miles better than the next best in thems days, but i don’t know about modern (ground based) detectors/antennas. So, the BB is a myth. And the CMB is a myth.

Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille says that the so called CMBR is not cosmic, it is produced by water in Earth's oceans etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw

The CMBR is actually the Oceanic Microwave Foreground Radiation (OMFR).

[crawler]

........... So how are the "processed" microwave background images from Planck supposedly so "smooth"? They essentially have to "filter out" all of the foreground parts of the raw images that are related to our own galaxy, and local galaxies to first remove those features from the images. What's left? What's left in the heavily processed images are all the microwaves from all the suns and all the galaxies from every other point source in the whole universe scattering around in the dust of spacetime. Even in heavily filtered images, what we end up with are "hot spots" related to galaxy clusters, and "cold spots" where less galaxies/suns reside. There's really no great mystery as to how astronomers get such a "smooth" microwave background. It's because they're filtering the hell out of it to make it smooth!

In short the CMB is just another ordinary background produced by countless numbers of suns and galaxies in the universe scattering around in the plasma and dust of spacetime. The overall average temperature of spacetime is *far better predicted* without a bang than with one. In short, the CMB doesn't favor a bang theory, rather it simply demonstrates that if you filter the hell out of any background image you can get a pretty smooth image. So what?

The CMB is absolutely *not* the smoking gun that proves the big bang theory. That is utter nonsense. The CMB is nothing more than a heavily processed set of images in the final analysis that easily correspond to stellar output as any image of our own sun, and any raw image clearly demonstrates.

There are lots of articles & papers by Mathis & by Pierre-Marie Robitaille & by Crothers & by others saying that & more. Including some Sky Scholar footage on youtube.

[Roshi]

I offer MeerKAT image of the Milky Way in Radio Wavelengths.

http://www.sciencealert.com/images/2018 ... b_1024.jpg

What does this image show?
I found this:
https://astronomynow.com/2018/07/15/mee ... milky-way/

Of special interest are long magnetised filaments discovered in the 1980s that are seen near the central black hole and nowhere else. Their origin is a mystery.

A mystery of course. Magnetic fields in space can only be produced by black magic.

Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin.[6][7] Magnetic fields and electric fields are interrelated and are both components of the electromagnetic force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature

[EtherQuestions]

A mystery of course. Magnetic fields in space can only be produced by black magic.

xD It must be a Dark Magic.

And some fools think electricity has something to do with magnetism ...

[neilwilkes]

A mystery of course. Magnetic fields in space can only be produced by black magic.

xD It must be a Dark Magic.

And some fools think electricity has something to do with magnetism ...

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmolog ... he_galaxy/

By the way, if you haven't seen his videos on the topic of the CMB, Robitaille's videos are well worth watching.

http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/norh/html/10 ... ltime.html

While Robitaille touches on this topic with respect to point sources, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how *ridiculous* it is to claim that any microwaves in space come from a mythical surface of last scattering. Every single sun in every single galaxy in a potentially infinite universe is a point source emitter of microwaves. Robitaille does a great job explaining the numerous and complex problems of trying to remove the foreground effects of our own galaxy from the raw images, but it's not *only* the 'foreground' effects of our own galaxy that you'd have to remove in order to see photons from a mythical surface of last scattering. You'd literally have to remove every single solar point source emission in the entire universe in order to see such a thing.

Literally every sun in every galaxy, all the scattering effects in the IGM from those point source emitters would have to be "filtered out" in order to be left with only the photons from a mythical surface of last scattering. That's not even scientifically possible, let alone feasible.

The mainstream tries to use the CMB as their "best evidence" of a big bang, yet when you really look at their claims, they are utterly laughable. There's no possible way to filter out every microwave from every sun in the universe, and all of the scattering in space from such a larger number of point source emitters, to observe only the photons from a mythical surface of last scattering. The mainstream claim that the the CMB is related to a "surface of last scattering" is patently absurd. That is scientifically impossible.

[crawler]

Ranzan says that the CMBR is due to redshifting (stretching) of lots of 6000 K starlight in our eternal infinite universe.
Conrad Ranzan – 2014 – Cosmic redshift in the Dynamic Steady State (non-expanding)(cellular) Universe. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/CosmicR ... Ranzan.pdf

But dont neglect Dr R's radiation from Earthly water.

[nick c]

Wal Thornhill on "what is the CMB?"
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/nobel-pr ... -a-fizzer/

The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation—as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe.