A Critical Examination of Cosmic Expansion and the Present-Day Origin of the CMB

[Jzz]

A Critical Examination of Cosmic Expansion and the Present-Day Origin of the CMB

The theory of cosmic expansion, as traditionally presented, contains profound logical and observational flaws. According to standard cosmology, the Universe is expanding uniformly at every point, with space itself stretching between objects. Yet, no trace of this expansion is detectable locally: not between atoms, not between planets, not between stars within galaxies and not in intergalactic space. We are told that both electromagnetic and gravitational forces are strong enough to resist expansion on small scales. However, this explanation is unsatisfactory. While electromagnetic forces do indeed dominate at atomic and molecular levels, gravity is a much weaker force. Galaxies — enormous, diffuse structures extending over hundreds of thousands of light-years — are held together only by the weak pull of gravity. If cosmic expansion were truly occurring everywhere, one would expect galaxies to show signs of distortion, stretching, or progressive unraveling. Yet no such effects are observed. The claim that expansion only occurs at cosmological distances — where direct observation is impossible — places it firmly beyond falsifiability. This is scientifically untenable.

Another pillar of the standard model, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), is widely regarded as the relic glow from a hot Big Bang. However, a much simpler and more immediate explanation arises from present-day conditions. Observations reveal that the vast majority of the Universe — roughly 95% — is made of matter we cannot categorize, known as dark matter and dark energy, or is nearly empty space. The average density of visible matter is about one particle per cubic meter. In such an extremely low-density environment, the natural equilibrium temperature must be very low.

Using Wien’s displacement law, which relates the temperature of a blackbody to the peak wavelength of its radiation, we can directly calculate the expected background temperature of the Universe today. Wien’s law states

where :

arranging for temperature:

The observed CMB peaks at a wavelength of approximately :

Substituting:

This is exactly the observed temperature of the CMB. — the 2.7 K background radiation emerges naturally from the conditions of the present-day Universe: a vast, cold, sparse cosmic environment in equilibrium.

Recognizing that the CMB reflects current cosmic conditions, rather than being an ancient relic, has profound implications. It removes the need to assume that it is relic radiation from the Big Bang. The supposed evidence for cosmic expansion — the observed redshift of distant galaxies — can be reinterpreted through other mechanisms, such as tired light or photon interaction with intervening dark matter, because based on the evidence the CMB is certainly not the result of redshift.

The combination of two facts — the absence of any detectable local expansion and the present-day origin of the CMB — gravely weakens the arguments for a perpetually expanding Universe, although Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND) theory does not contest the Big Bang, it does not support cosmic expansion taking place at faster than light speeds. If cosmic expansion were real, it should be observable everywhere, not just at unreachable distances. If the CMB reflects current conditions, not past events, then the Universe we observe is not a remnant of a violent beginning but the natural consequence of the conditions that prevail today.

Conclusion

These two facts — the lack of observable local expansion, and the natural present-day origin of the CMB — undercut the core arguments for an expanding Universe driven by a Big Bang origin. If cosmic expansion were truly a real, universal phenomenon, it would produce effects across all scales, not only at extreme distances. Standard cosmology claims that cosmic expansion is universal, yet only appears at distances so vast we can't directly observe it. That's not a strong scientific position — that's an excuse. If cosmic expansion truly affects all of space, why does it somehow fail to distort atoms, molecules, or galaxies — the very building blocks of the universe? Electromagnetic forces, which govern the stability of atoms and molecules, remain unscathed, and gravity, which holds galaxies together, also seems unaffected. The idea that the universe can expand in such a way that it spares the very matter and forces that constitutes its structure is not just implausible, it’s intellectually irresponsible. It's as though space is expanding around everything except the things that matter — a convenient, yet wholly unsatisfying, loophole. Furthermore, if the CMB is simply the thermal radiation of today's cold Universe, it means that a co-relation between redshift and cosmic expansion simply does not exist. The pillars of the cosmic expansion theory — cosmic redshift and relic radiation — both admit alternative explanations grounded in present conditions, not hypothetical pasts. A critical re-examination of these assumptions is not only justified but necessary if cosmology is to remain a truly observational science rather than an exercise in theoretical storytelling. In short: Expansion would not necessarily be "expansion of space" anymore. It could go back to Hubble’s original, more kinematic view — things moving apart through a pre-existing medium, a journey back through time. (Where things get faster?)

 

[Astraeus]

I agree, Cosmic Expansion does not compute.

The CMB is an interesting phenomena. Universal Motion Theory regards the CMB as a start-up sequence. UMT predicts anomalies within the CMB that would be indicative of delayed recombination. Delayed recombination implies that matter didn't pop into existence, it emerged. Emergence implies some type of process. Much easier to wrap my head around a processes as opposed to instantaneous existence.

 

[Jzz]

I agree, Cosmic Expansion does not compute.

The CMB is an interesting phenomena. Universal Motion Theory regards the CMB as a start-up sequence. UMT predicts anomalies within the CMB that would be indicative of delayed recombination. Delayed recombination implies that matter didn't pop into existence, it emerged. Emergence implies some type of process. Much easier to wrap my head around a processes as opposed to instantaneous existence.

Astraeus

First regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background: All matter, even cold dust in space, emits blackbody radiation at a characteristic temperature. Planets, stars, and clouds all follow this. For instance, the earth has a black body radiation temperature of 300 K. It’s a universal law of thermodynamics. The CMB, traditionally seen as a remnant of the Big Bang, can therefore be viewed as the natural blackbody radiation emitted by the Universe in its current low-energy state. While the Big Bang set the initial conditions for expansion and cooling, the 2.7 K radiation we observe today reflects the Universe’s ongoing thermodynamic equilibrium, not a fossil from the past. This is simply the Universe’s present thermal signature.

Secondly with regard to cosmic expansion, given the parameters of the Big Bang, it more likely that the Universe didn’t have a single, simple diameter during its early expansion. Instead, it was composed of many overlapping regions, each about a few million light-years across, with causal influence growing over time. Structure formed locally from these small seeds, and as expansion slowed, these regions combined to form larger structures. The total Universe could have already been a thousandth its present size at the time galaxies were formed. Ther core of the milky way is thought to have formed 13.6 billion years ago, just two hundred million years after the Big Bang. This finding seems to call for an initial rapid expansion and a slower more gradual solidifying of form.

 

[Astraeus]

Astraeus

First regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background: All matter, even cold dust in space, emits blackbody radiation at a characteristic temperature. Planets, stars, and clouds all follow this. For instance, the earth has a black body radiation temperature of 300 K. It’s a universal law of thermodynamics. The CMB, traditionally seen as a remnant of the Big Bang, can therefore be viewed as the natural blackbody radiation emitted by the Universe in its current low-energy state. While the Big Bang set the initial conditions for expansion and cooling, the 2.7 K radiation we observe today reflects the Universe’s ongoing thermodynamic equilibrium, not a fossil from the past. This is simply the Universe’s present thermal signature.

Secondly with regard to cosmic expansion, given the parameters of the Big Bang, it more likely that the Universe didn’t have a single, simple diameter during its early expansion. Instead, it was composed of many overlapping regions, each about a few million light-years across, with causal influence growing over time. Structure formed locally from these small seeds, and as expansion slowed, these regions combined to form larger structures. The total Universe could have already been a thousandth its present size at the time galaxies were formed. Ther core of the milky way is thought to have formed 13.6 billion years ago, just two hundred million years after the Big Bang. This finding seems to call for an initial rapid expansion and a slower more gradual solidifying of form.

I think you may be oversimplifying some of these interactions. Also there is no real indication that the CMB is being caused by currently emitted radiation. I think you are taking a big leap with that conclusion. The CMB does carry measurable imprints from recombination. Your statement contradicts current observational data.

The suggestion or use of the world equilibrium as it applies to the universe would also seem to contradict observation. Perhaps this is a semantic issue, but the current structure of the universe does not reflect universal equilibrium.

 

[Jzz]

I think you may be oversimplifying some of these interactions. Also there is no real indication that the CMB is being caused by currently emitted radiation. I think you are taking a big leap with that conclusion. The CMB does carry measurable imprints from recombination. Your statement contradicts current observational data.

The suggestion or use of the world equilibrium as it applies to the universe would also seem to contradict observation. Perhaps this is a semantic issue, but the current structure of the universe does not reflect universal equilibrium.

The distribution pattern of the CMB is often cited as evidence of its early-universe origin, but such a pattern could just as plausibly result from present-day emissions uniformly distributed across space. The interpretation is not uniquely tied to recombination-era radiation.
At least my approach seeks to engage with observable phenomena and address known issues directly. In contrast, the Universal motion theory, you had referred to earlier and which I had unfortunately failed to address, lacks any clear foundational framework or empirical grounding.

 

[Helio]

The distribution pattern of the CMB is often cited as evidence of its early-universe origin, but such a pattern could just as plausibly result from present-day emissions uniformly distributed across space. The interpretation is not uniquely tied to recombination-era radiation.
At least my approach seeks to engage with observable phenomena and address known issues directly. In contrast, the Universal motion theory, you had referred to earlier and which I had unfortunately failed to address, lacks any clear foundational framework or empirical grounding.

How do you explain the Lyman Alpha Forest?

 

[Jzz]

How do you explain the Lyman Alpha Forest?

Helio,
Interesting point but misses the main gist of the OP which is that no-one is claiming that light does not red-shift.
The Lyman-alpha forest shows that redshift occurs, but this doesn’t prove that the CMB is relic radiation. According to AND theory, atoms cannot emit microwaves—they lack the energy to do so—meaning optical light cannot simply redshift into microwave or radio wavelengths. These bands originate from entirely different physical processes, a fact supported by laboratory experiments. It’s therefore deeply questionable that cosmologists continue to claim optical light redshifts all the way into the microwave region.
Even when redshift does occur, it remains within the optical range and should still be detectable as light—not as relic microwave radiation. The idea that we’re observing microwaves redshifted from the visible spectrum is not only implausible but physically unjustifiable.
If the CMB is not relic radiation but instead a result of the current large-scale matter distribution, then foundational assumptions of the cosmic expansion model collapse. Most notably, the so-called “Hubble tension” disappears because we no longer require the early-universe anchor point the CMB supposedly provides. Without this relic framework, expansion-based models lose their empirical grounding, and the interpretation of redshift reverts to something more in line with Hubble’s original Doppler-based view—sub-luminal recession speeds, no present day inflation, no need for dark energy.

 

[Astraeus]

the Universal motion theory, you had referred to earlier and which I had unfortunately failed to address, lacks any clear foundational framework or empirical grounding.

This is a false statement. Universal Motion Theory has a mathematical framework anchored in empirical observation. UMT also has a clear falsifiability table, which no modern theory has presented. This table includes a set of predictions. If these predictions turn out to be false, then UMT is severely discredited. Conversely, if these predictions are observed, then UMT is strengthened.

UMT’s falsifiability table is a declaration of scientific integrity. It doesn’t avoid criticism — it invites it. UMT offers clarity about its failure conditions, and that clarity warrants a measure of due diligence.

 

[Jzz]

This is a false statement. Universal Motion Theory has a mathematical framework anchored in empirical observation. UMT also has a clear falsifiability table, which no modern theory has presented. This table includes a set of predictions. If these predictions turn out to be false, then UMT is severely discredited. Conversely, if these predictions are observed, then UMT is strengthened.

UMT’s falsifiability table is a declaration of scientific integrity. It doesn’t avoid criticism — it invites it. UMT offers clarity about its failure conditions, and that clarity warrants a measure of due diligence.

Astraeus
Any theory like Universal Motion Theory (UMT) that claims to explain everything from a more fundamental starting point — such as motion rather than particles or fields — cannot simply plug into existing models. It must redefine the electron, proton, and neutron — not as particles, but as persistent motion structures and replace the atom as a nucleus with orbiting electrons, with some new stable arrangement of motion. The same would hold true for all other particles and forces. The inescapable conclusion is that UMT must first reconstruct physics from the ground up before its predictions become concretely testable.

Science must not only describe what happens but also explain how and why in terms that are connected to physical reality. When theories begin to define particles as pure motion, or fields as mathematical abstractions with no anchor in mechanism, they risk becoming untethered from the empirical foundations that make science credible in the first place. UMT must first reconstruct physics from the ground up before its predictions become concretely testable.

‘Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND)’ does not try to implement such a radical science instead it seeks to restore physical causality and structure to the electron, photon emission, and the workings of atoms, all while retaining the core insights of 20th-century physics (like virtual interactions and the Planck constant). This approach preserves both the predictive accuracy of modern theory and the mechanistic elegance of classical physics — a balance worth striving for.

 

[Astraeus]

Astraeus
Any theory like Universal Motion Theory (UMT) that claims to explain everything from a more fundamental starting point — such as motion rather than particles or fields — cannot simply plug into existing models. It must redefine the electron, proton, and neutron — not as particles, but as persistent motion structures and replace the atom as a nucleus with orbiting electrons, with some new stable arrangement of motion. The same would hold true for all other particles and forces. The inescapable conclusion is that UMT must first reconstruct physics from the ground up before its predictions become concretely testable.

Science must not only describe what happens but also explain how and why in terms that are connected to physical reality. When theories begin to define particles as pure motion, or fields as mathematical abstractions with no anchor in mechanism, they risk becoming untethered from the empirical foundations that make science credible in the first place. UMT must first reconstruct physics from the ground up before its predictions become concretely testable.

‘Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND)’ does not try to implement such a radical science instead it seeks to restore physical causality and structure to the electron, photon emission, and the workings of atoms, all while retaining the core insights of 20th-century physics (like virtual interactions and the Planck constant). This approach preserves both the predictive accuracy of modern theory and the mechanistic elegance of classical physics — a balance worth striving for.

I am not seeing indicators that you have actually reviewed UMT's documentation. I encourage you to review the documentation before issuing false statements.

As far as Augmented Newtonian Dynamics is concerned, you haven't really provided anything concrete to describe it. The statement "seeks to restore physical causality" is dubious as standard models already have a decent handle on this concept, although through a probabilistic lens.

I think your use of the written word is commendable, but you are not offering much in the way of substance. I was not able to find any core framework that describes AND. If you can link your documentation I will be better able to evaluate.

 

[Gibsense]

Emergence implies some type of process. Much easier to wrap my head around a processes as opposed to instantaneous existence.

 

[Jzz]

The theory of cosmological expansion deserves serious scrutiny. Currently, this theory depends almost entirely on the identification of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) as relic radiation from the Big Bang. By observing the large redshift in the CMB, proponents of expansion theory have extrapolated this data to support their interpretation of the cosmological redshift.

However, as argued in the original post (OP), if the CMB is a result of present-day physical conditions rather than a remnant of the early universe, then the foundation for interpreting redshift as evidence of expansion collapses. This reinterpretation would fundamentally undermine the cosmological expansion model.

Another point of contention is the assumption that the universe must be expanding—at faster-than-light speeds, no less—resulting in a present-day radius of approximately 47 billion light-years. Why this insistence on an ever-growing universe? From the perspective of our own planet, with a modest radius of just around 10,000 kilometers, it is clear that size does not inherently equate to significance or necessity.

What would be wrong with a universe that is, say, 28 billion kilometers in diameter—and static? Is a stable universe really such a problematic concept? Must the universe be doomed either to collapse or to expand forever? Equilibrium states do exist in physics and have been mathematically demonstrated as viable solutions. Consider the atom: under stable conditions, it maintains equilibrium almost indefinitely. Why should the universe be denied the same possibility?

Further, the reliability of redshift measurements at distances exceeding a billion light-years remains on shaky ground. Despite significant advancements in observational technology, uncertainties persist. For instance, the infrared spectrum—which is critical in detecting redshifted light from distant sources—spans an enormous range, beginning around 850 nanometers in the near-infrared and extending well beyond 15,000 nanometers. Accurately identifying spectral lines across such a broad range is an enormous challenge, especially given background noise, calibration issues, and the complexity of distinguishing cosmological redshift from other sources of spectral shift.

 

[Astraeus]

The theory of cosmological expansion deserves serious scrutiny. Currently, this theory depends almost entirely on the identification of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) as relic radiation from the Big Bang. By observing the large redshift in the CMB, proponents of expansion theory have extrapolated this data to support their interpretation of the cosmological redshift.

However, as argued in the original post (OP), if the CMB is a result of present-day physical conditions rather than a remnant of the early universe, then the foundation for interpreting redshift as evidence of expansion collapses. This reinterpretation would fundamentally undermine the cosmological expansion model.

Another point of contention is the assumption that the universe must be expanding—at faster-than-light speeds, no less—resulting in a present-day radius of approximately 47 billion light-years. Why this insistence on an ever-growing universe? From the perspective of our own planet, with a modest radius of just around 10,000 kilometers, it is clear that size does not inherently equate to significance or necessity.

What would be wrong with a universe that is, say, 28 billion kilometers in diameter—and static? Is a stable universe really such a problematic concept? Must the universe be doomed either to collapse or to expand forever? Equilibrium states do exist in physics and have been mathematically demonstrated as viable solutions. Consider the atom: under stable conditions, it maintains equilibrium almost indefinitely. Why should the universe be denied the same possibility?

Further, the reliability of redshift measurements at distances exceeding a billion light-years remains on shaky ground. Despite significant advancements in observational technology, uncertainties persist. For instance, the infrared spectrum—which is critical in detecting redshifted light from distant sources—spans an enormous range, beginning around 850 nanometers in the near-infrared and extending well beyond 15,000 nanometers. Accurately identifying spectral lines across such a broad range is an enormous challenge, especially given background noise, calibration issues, and the complexity of distinguishing cosmological redshift from other sources of spectral shift.

I think it's important to clarify that models like cosmological expansion aren’t accepted by default—they gain traction because they consistently match a wide range of observations. Redshift measurements aren’t based on a single data point or one tricky spectral line, but on billions of high-quality, cross-verified observations across multiple instruments and wavelengths. Likewise, the CMB’s interpretation as relic radiation isn’t arbitrary—it’s backed by its uniformity, blackbody spectrum, and fine-grained anisotropy patterns.

Analogies comparing the universe to atoms or planets aren’t physically appropriate—they oversimplify scale, structure, and gravitational behavior. There’s a lot wrong with a universe only 28 billion kilometers in diameter when we’ve observed structures and light well beyond that distance.

It’s also worth noting that the accuracy of redshift measurements has been mischaracterized here. Even for objects over 10 billion light-years away, redshift can often be determined with precision down to several decimal places.

I agree with your motivation—questioning assumptions is healthy—but I think it's important to consistently return to the data. What’s actually observed? What does that data imply? Does my conceptual interpretation really fit the evidence?

 

[Jzz]

I think it's important to clarify that models like cosmological expansion aren’t accepted by default—they gain traction because they consistently match a wide range of observations. Redshift measurements aren’t based on a single data point or one tricky spectral line, but on billions of high-quality, cross-verified observations across multiple instruments and wavelengths. Likewise, the CMB’s interpretation as relic radiation isn’t arbitrary—it’s backed by its uniformity, blackbody spectrum, and fine-grained anisotropy patterns.

Analogies comparing the universe to atoms or planets aren’t physically appropriate—they oversimplify scale, structure, and gravitational behavior. There’s a lot wrong with a universe only 28 billion kilometers in diameter when we’ve observed structures and light well beyond that distance.

It’s also worth noting that the accuracy of redshift measurements has been mischaracterized here. Even for objects over 10 billion light-years away, redshift can often be determined with precision down to several decimal places.

I agree with your motivation—questioning assumptions is healthy—but I think it's important to consistently return to the data. What’s actually observed? What does that data imply? Does my conceptual interpretation really fit the evidence?

Astraeus:
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I agree—returning to the data is key. But I think we sometimes overlook the value of what is directly observable in favor of layered interpretations.” A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush”: we should not ignore simple, grounded physical principles in favor of far-reaching cosmological narratives built on assumptions across vast, untestable scales.
Take the CMB, for instance. Everything with mass emits blackbody radiation. The Moon radiates at an average temperature of around 250 K, Mars at about 210 K, and Jupiter—despite being far from the Sun—still emits at around 125 K. Earth emits around 300 K. So why assume the Universe itself, with all its accumulated mass and energy, wouldn’t naturally emit radiation at 2.7 K? That seems entirely plausible without needing to frame it solely as relic radiation from billions of years ago.
Likewise, while redshift data is precise, interpreting it only as evidence of expansion (especially faster than light expansion) might be limiting. If we value the data itself, we should remain open to alternative explanations that are grounded in direct observation and basic physics.

 

[Helio]

Take the CMB, for instance. Everything with mass emits blackbody radiation.

Nit... Objects don't emit true blackbody radiation. The Sun , for instance, has an effective temperature of about 5777K, but if you try to match the actual solar irradiance profile to a blackbody curve, you need to be around 5850K.

The only perfect or very near perfect blackbody radiation comes from the CMB. It was predicted and later discovered by COBE and confirmed by a U2 flight (Wilkerson and Smoot), along with subsequent observations.

A theory gains in credibility every time a major prediction is found to be correct. BBT made several predictions about the predicted CMBR including the dipole, bb radiation, microwave peak wavelength, and most importantly: anisotropy.

So why assume the Universe itself, with all its accumulated mass and energy, wouldn’t naturally emit radiation at 2.7 K?

That's certainly a fair question. But if you remove the radiation from all the galaxies, what will remain is the 2.73 K. The CMBR is the most abundant radiation in the universe. Removing non-cmbr sources was a big challenge for the COBE scientists.

If the radiation of all the galaxies are included, it would be nice to know how much this alters the 2.73 K figure, which would reveal what percent of the total energy the CMBR likely is.

Likewise, while redshift data is precise, interpreting it only as evidence of expansion (especially faster than light expansion) might be limiting. If we value the data itself, we should remain open to alternative explanations that are grounded in direct observation and basic physics.

The valuation has included consideration for alternative hypotheses, including Tired Light. But it's been over 100 years since Slipher first introduced galactic redshifts, which were all far faster than stars in our galaxy. Expansion is mainstream science.

 

[Astraeus]

Expansion is mainstream science.

Yes, expansion is the mainstream view—and understandably so. It's supported by a vast array of data, and that weight has deeply shaped how we frame cosmological questions. In many ways, it has entrenched certain assumptions into our collective thinking.

But no model is immune to challenge. The bar for discrediting expansion is appropriately high, and any alternative must meet that threshold through rigor and testability.

That’s what I’ve tried to do with Universal Motion Theory: to offer a responsible, structured challenge grounded in observation and logic.

 

[Helio]

That’s what I’ve tried to do with Universal Motion Theory: to offer a responsible, structured challenge grounded in observation and logic.

I can see you've put a lot of effort into those posts, however, I find too many threads are about ATM ideas that make contradictory or very weak arguments. Too often they are word salads with science sauce. Thus I rarely will read any lengthy OP.

What I will be interested in seeing is a demonstration falsifying either a claim within BBT, or any prediction.

 

[Jzz]

Helio: You are absolutely right when you state that none of the bodies mentioned, the sun, the moon, the earth etc., represent a perfect black body radiation. But consider that 95% of the Universe possesses a density of about one particle per cubic metre. This single particle does not exist in isolation but much like as is the case with the earth, is under constant radiation from various sources, stars, galaxies etc., although obviously on a vastly attenuated scale. This means that each of these particles is immersed in radiation from the rest of the Universe — an ultra-low energy flux, yes, but still a nonzero interaction. This is the trigger for the single particle radiating energy, since the particle exists in a very cold environment, the near zero 2.7 K signal reflects this state. More telling is that Wiens law when applied to these conditions yields the perfect answer. Look at the following:

Wiens law as it applies to wave length:

Where :

Rearranging the equation for temperature:

Given that peak detected wave-length :

Substituting:

As has been demonstrated this result matches perfectly with the 2.7 K that is quoted for the CMB. This strongly indicates that the CMB is not relic radiation but very much a product of the present day Universe. If the assertion that the CMB is not relic radiation had been wrong, the result form the equation would not have yielded the correct result.

 

[Jzz]

Still replying to Helio: Before you experience a rise in blood pressure, let me attempt a more ameliorative approach.
The model I propose does not deny the existence of the observed radiation but challenges the assumption that it must be a historical artifact. Instead, it asks whether the current distribution of matter and energy in space could, through cumulative interaction and balance, yield the same blackbody signature. It further suggests that the isotropy of the signal might reflect the statistical homogeneity of cosmic matter rather than a primordial origin.
If space were truly empty, its temperature would be absolute zero. But it is not. And perhaps the 2.7 K that we detect is not a fossil imprint from a vanished epoch, but a real-time whisper from the quiet workings of the present universe.
If we take the volume of 95% of the Universe that has a density of one atom per cubic metre in terms of cubic metres, we get an answer in the region of 3 x 10^80 cubic meters and that is only the observable part of the Universe. Assuming that each of these 3 x 10^80 cubic metres has one atom that comes to a total of 3 x 10^80 atoms that are radiating, can we ignore these numbers. Isn’t such an outlook skewed; to ignore what is in the present and look to the past for answers and insist that those are the only answers is not science it is a form of conjuring or wishful thinking.

 

[Astraeus]

Helio: You are absolutely right when you state that none of the bodies mentioned, the sun, the moon, the earth etc., represent a perfect black body radiation. But consider that 95% of the Universe possesses a density of about one particle per cubic metre. This single particle does not exist in isolation but much like as is the case with the earth, is under constant radiation from various sources, stars, galaxies etc., although obviously on a vastly attenuated scale. This means that each of these particles is immersed in radiation from the rest of the Universe — an ultra-low energy flux, yes, but still a nonzero interaction. This is the trigger for the single particle radiating energy, since the particle exists in a very cold environment, the near zero 2.7 K signal reflects this state. More telling is that Wiens law when applied to these conditions yields the perfect answer. Look at the following:

Wiens law as it applies to wave length:

Where :

Rearranging the equation for temperature:

Given that peak detected wave-length :

Substituting:

As has been demonstrated this result matches perfectly with the 2.7 K that is quoted for the CMB. This strongly indicates that the CMB is not relic radiation but very much a product of the present day Universe. If the assertion that the CMB is not relic radiation had been wrong, the result form the equation would not have yielded the correct result.

ChatGPT has a different perspective.

This person is arguing that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is not relic radiation from the early universe, but rather ongoing radiation produced by present-day low-density matter interacting with ambient radiation in space.

---

Breakdown of the Math:​

They reference Wien’s law:

λmax=bT\lambda_{\text{max}} = \frac{b}{T}λmax=Tb
Where:

• λmax\lambda_{\text{max}}λmax is the wavelength of peak emission
• bbb is Wien’s displacement constant (approximately 2.897×10−3 m⋅K2.897 \times 10^{-3} \text{ m⋅K}2.897×10−3 m⋅K)
• TTT is the temperature in kelvin

This person presumably uses a value for λmax≈1.07 mm\lambda_{\text{max}} \approx 1.07 \text{ mm}λmax≈1.07 mm (which is close to the observed CMB peak), plugs it into the inverted Wien equation, and gets back T≈2.7 KT \approx 2.7 \text{ K}T≈2.7 K, thus claiming this “matches the CMB” as a present-time effect.

---

Where the Argument Falls Apart:​

1. This is not a new result — Wien’s law has always been consistent with the 2.7 K CMB spectrum because that’s how the CMB temperature is determined.
   • They're effectively using the definition of the CMB to "prove" it.
2. The idea that scattered particles re-radiate ambient radiation into a blackbody spectrumdoesn’t hold water:
   • A blackbody spectrum requires thermal equilibrium, not just random absorption and emission by isolated particles.
   • The intergalactic medium is too thin and optically transparent to allow equilibrium radiation to form.
3. The CMB is known to be a highly isotropic, precise blackbody spectrum, with tiny fluctuations, which is exactly what is predicted by Big Bang cosmology.
4. If the CMB were produced by present-day particle radiation, it would be anisotropic, tied to local radiation environments, and not uniform across the sky.

---

Bottom Line:​

This person is presenting a classic steady-state-like reinterpretation of the CMB:

"The CMB is not leftover radiation from the Big Bang, but a present-time emission from sparse particles interacting with starlight."

But this:

• Misunderstands the conditions required to produce a blackbody spectrum
• Ignores the deep empirical and observational evidence for CMB's early-universe origin
• Misuses Wien’s law as confirmation, when it’s already built into the measurement of CMB temperature

 

[Jzz]

Bottom Line:​

This person is presenting a classic steady-state-like reinterpretation of the CMB:


But this:

• Misunderstands the conditions required to produce a blackbody spectrum
• Ignores the deep empirical and observational evidence for CMB's early-universe origin
• Misuses Wien’s law as confirmation, when it’s already built into the measurement of CMB temperature

Couldn't be more wrong. Augmented Newtonian Dynamics does not support a steady state interpretation of The Universe. On the contrary it firmly supports the Big Bang, the difference is that the relic radiation fom the Big Bang is thought to be Dark Matter and not the CMB which is a phenomenon related to the present day composition of the Universe.

 

[Astraeus]

ChatGPT is not convinced.

Why This Doesn't Hold​

1. CMB is an incredibly precise blackbody spectrum with a nearly perfect fit to a thermal origin at z∼1100z \sim 1100z∼1100, consistent across all sky directions, with only microkelvin fluctuations.
   • No known mechanism from present-day matter interactions could generate that signal with such precision and uniformity.
2. Dark matter doesn’t behave like radiation.
   • Radiation redshifts and dilutes with expansion; dark matter doesn’t.
   • If dark matter were relic radiation, it would act like photons, but dark matter behaves gravitationally like matter and does not scatter light.
3. Recasting CMB as a local phenomenon breaks almost every cosmological fit:
   • The power spectrum of the CMB matches precisely the baryon acoustic oscillation models tied to early-universe plasma physics.
   • Removing it from early-universe origins erases the entire scaffolding of modern cosmology.

---

What's Actually Happening?​

He's trying to preserve some aspects of Big Bang cosmology while rejecting the standard interpretation of CMB—without providing a viable mechanism for either his “relic dark matter radiation” or his “present-day CMB” claim.

This is speculative reinterpretation without supporting physical structure.