Strange

The current theory is based on a mountain of evidence. The discovery of galaxies with an age of 13.8 billion or more years would therefore contradict all that evidence. You have another thread where these questions have been answered multiple times already. Why do you keep asking the same thing? What do you mean by "wavelength radiation"?

Of course we don't "know" that. But that is what our best theories and evidence tells us. You seem to be looking for some bizarre level of certainty that doesn't exist (in science, at least). No, because at the time that the radiation was emitted the universe was(*) a uniform hot dense plasma. It took millions more years for stars to form. (*) As far as we know at the moment ... according to our current best theories and evidence ... subject to change ... more information ... yadayada

What do you mean by "wavelength radiation"? What do you mean by it being "linear"? It is light. It can cross exactly the same distance as light. Why do you think otherwise? What do you mean by "wavelength radiation"? I don't think you have given enough information to say anything about the shape of the universe. What information do you think says anything about the shape of the universe? I'm not sure anyone knows what the shape of the universe is. So I doubt it could be worked out from the vague and confusing information you have provided. The only difference is that there are no galaxies at the distance that the CMB comes from. There is nothing "special" about the radiation that allows it to travel further - it just started further away. Also, much of the light from the most distant galaxies is not visible light. It will have been shifted into the infra-red or beyond.

Because to know the red-shift you have to know the original frequency and the frequency now. We cannot measure the original frequency so that is purely theoretical.

There is a limit to the sensitivity of instruments. At some point it will no longer be possible to detect photons with that little energy. But do you mean, what if it turns out that the CMB is not due to the changing scale factor? In other words, what if General Relativity is fundamentally wrong? Then GPS satellites would stop working. And we would have to find alternative explanations for all the evidence for GR and the big bang model. That would be pretty exciting. But also extremely unlikely.

The red shift is purely theoretical. It is not a directly observed fact. The spectrum of the CMB is an observational fact but identifying it as a "black body spectrum" is theoretical. We know what is happening now. We have no evidence currently to indicate that will change. So all we can do is extrapolate based on what we know. Of course, in future, more observations might change that. That is implicit in every single scientific statement. Every time you read a sentence about science you need to add "As far as we know, according to current best theories ..." to the start and "... this may be subject to change as we learn more" to the end. It would make things unnecessarily cumbersome to write every sentence like that. especially as everyone know that sceince is provisional and based on our current best theories. What is the difference? It will continue redshifting for ever. At some point it will become undetectable.

Almost the only "fact" about the CMB is that it is a black body spectrum with a temperature of 2.3K. Oh no, wait: "black body" is a theoretical concept. "Temperature" is a theoretical concept. You cannot separate facts from theory. You just want to do that because you think theory is wrong. But as you have just demonstrated (again) that you are profoundly ignorant and unwilling/unable to learn, I don't think your opinions on theory are worth anything.

Really? It says "Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100[77] due to the expansion of the universe." I don't think it is reasonable to blame your ignorance on a conspiracy. But maybe this isn't surprising. You think that if you, personally, don't understand something then all the world's scientists must be wrong. And if you have failed to read and/or learn something then it is some sort of military secret. It is Wikipedia. You can add that if you want to. You will need to add a link to the page where the scale factor of 1089 is explained. (There are already links to that on the page. So an intelligent reader can find all the information they need.) But maybe it is irresponsible of me to encourage someone who is so wilfully ignorant to edit Wikipedia!

I guess that is quite a good analogy for the "non realistic" or "no hidden variables" aspect; in other words the value is not just unknown but undefined until it is measured.

This is not a secret. Google reporrts half a million results: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cmb+redshift Google Scholar has thousands of papers: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=cmb+redshift Arxiv has so many it won't list them all: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+cmb+redshift/0/1/0/all/0/1 Yes, there is. For example, it says: "The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time" "The intensity of the radiation also corresponds to black-body radiation at 2.726 K because red-shifted black-body radiation is just like black-body radiation at a lower temperature." "As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted" "The temperature Tr of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.235 meV)" "the cosmic microwave background will continue redshifting until it will no longer be detectable" So there is no conspiracy to hide this information.

Once you know what the orientation is, they are no longer entangled; measurement destroys the entangled state. So if you flip one of them after that, it will have no effect on the other.

I'm sure there are scientists looking at that. I haven't seen anything about their work or results though.

Because that is what science does. It continually tests established theories. Things are never taken for granted. After all, finding errors in current theory is how advances are made.

For light, yes. (Because there is no light from earlier than that.) But if we could detect low-energy neutrinos, for example, then they would be shifted by a larger amount - because they were around earlier. All of the CMB comes from the same distance and therefore all of it is affected equally. There is a single red-shift for all the frequencies in the CMB. All frequencies are shifted equally. All wavelengths are scaled by the same amount. The red-shift affects all frequencies by the same amount. Because there is. The radiation is scaled (red-shifted) by 1,100. Why do you claim there isn't?

The other way round. The red shift is an outcome of the (difference in) scale factor. I don't know where I would have said that. I'm not even sure what you mean. Different redshifts correspond to different scale factors. (But all frequencies at a given distance are red-shifted by the same amount.) Correct. And when looking at stars, this is how the red-shift is measured. By looking at known frequencies and seeing how much they are shifted. You said: I was asking what "some" refers to. There is only one scale factor involved in our observation of the CMB. So what do your 10, 50, 100 and 500 refer to?

You seem to be missing the point.

It could just be your natural breathing. And the fact you seem to need to have your hands near it suggest that either they are directing your breath or, as I say, it is convection. Or both of those. I assume you can't make it move when you are sitting on the other side of the room? I hope you now realise that, with plenty of mundane possibilities, there is no reason to consider telekinesis. (Unless you can eliminate those alternatives. But your one attempt with a glass bowl just confirms that it is something mundane.)

OK. So convection caused by the heat from your hands seems a likely cause now.

Why do you think there are magnetic monopoles? Why do you think they would create a gravitational effect? What does the above have to do with weak hypercharge? What is the relevance of "current loops"? What is the relevance of Gravitoelectromagnetism? In other words, everything. You seem to have posted a random mish-mash of physics buzz words with no attempt at sense or explanation. Perhaps you need to start again from the beginning and explain what you are talking about.

It isn't. It is applied to distance. That is why it is linear. It does. But see below. It is the existence of the CMB that was the conclusive evidence for the big bang model. So you are wrong. The current CMB radiation did not come from 45 billion lightyears away. It came (as you have already been told) from about 45 million light years away. That is the relation between scale factor and wavelength you asked for. For some what? It is caused by the relative scale factor between now and when it was emitted. Which is roughly 1,100. You have that the wrong way round. The temperature when it was emitted is known (from knowledge of plasmas and the interaction with photons). From that and the temperature now (the CMB) the amount of cooling can be calculated, which is consistent with all the other evidence in the model. Do you have to work hard at not understanding? Or does it come naturally?

I am definitely NOT suggesting that the OP is faking it. I am sure he is completely sincere. (But then, I am very gullible ... )

You won't see the oscillating fan in the background that, by an odd coincidence, turns towards the paper just when Eldad manages to make it move.

Because the simplest function is linear scaling. This can then (if necessary) be applied to area or volume. If the scaling were defined in terms of volume, then when you wanted to calculate the change in distance you would have equations with cube-roots. This seems more complicated to me. Because the scaling is isotropic, you simply cube it to get the volumetric scaling. If you need such a thing. I don't follow your argument. 1,100 is how much the universe has scaled (expanded) since the CMB was emitted. By then the universe will have expanded even more and so the CMB will be colder and the scaling factor greater. Perhaps if you changed your default setting from "I don't understand so the science must be wrong" to "I don't understand so I need to work harder" you might be able to learn something, instead of repeating the same errors after things have been explained multiple times. (For example, my link in post #57 was posted 4 days ago with a much more detailed explanation.) Stop. Read. Think. Assume that if the explanation appears to be wrong or doesn't make sense then the problem lies with you not the science. Read it again. Think harder. If still stuck then come here and ask questions (i.e. don't make random guesses and false assertions followed by "do you agree").

Still not sure what the relevance of infinite energy is. If the universe is infinite, then a path can be infinite. If the universe is finite but continuously expanding (which I guess is what you mean by "open") then I think that the expansion of the universe and means that there will always be locations that it will never be possible to reach (even at the speed of light) because they are carried away by expansion faster than you can approach them. Therefore the path is infinite.

By not allowing public displays of sex. I think the taboo may be used for political / religious purposes, but I don't think that is the origin of it.