Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang.
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 19:58:34 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <5bb3fe3427b93bfc3d6f3814211d4d54@www.novabbs.com>
References: <582d81a086d369cf0cd2e78d401de6ec@www.novabbs.com> <vpfres$kfe9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1452173"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$AeWStAYY7QQD6ObmDqYE0uvKfkU0qjRRYxFS2uy63x8lzFhZ6vCmW
Bytes: 1661
Lines: 12

You're still saying "duh" at the end of your comments.

It is virtually isotropic and the anisotropy is not consistent with a
velocity-distance relation. Yes, the velocity-distance relation does
require the temperature to be anisotropic, so you are wrong. It requires
it because it would have to be dispersed more further out resulting from
the expansion. How can you quibble with that?

"The radiation was isotropic, i.e., it had very close to the same
temperature all across the sky -- temperature differences of < 0.004 %
on angular scales of 7 degrees (excluding a well-known 0.12 % variation
known as the dipole anisotropy and finer, lower amplitude temperature
variations)"