Description of the shape of the CMB Angular Spectrum (part 3).
My prior posts connected with the CMB Angular Spectrum: ##619, 623, 625, 626, 629, and 630.
In this part I describe the first biggest ‘peak’ and the ‘twin peaks’.

First the biggest peak.

In prior post I stated that after a few first correlated explosions of the typical black holes the correlation of the explosions was lost. Because after these first biggest explosions the expansion of our young World was rapider then the temperature inside the loop dropped faster. Also after the succeeding explosion the mass of the H+He+O+Fe+Pu gas was greater so with time the intensity of the electron captures by Fe was greater (I do not take into account Pu because it has much greater the atomic mass so Pu was in the densest regions of the structures i.e. in the regions of highest temperature, it means that Pu was ionized). After some time the intensity of the electron captures reached the maximum value. Because with time the Fe ions were less and less so the anisotropic power dropped. In prior post I calculated the upper limit for this peak 3764 micro-K². How we may calculate the upper limit for the maximum of the anisotropic power? The average value of the anisotropic power is connected with the decrease of mass of each the typical holes to half-way down. Because the typical black holes have spherical shape and almost constant density then the radius of such smaller mass was equal to 0.7937 of the external radius of the typical black hole (it was equal to 0.7937•37.6 km=29.8 km). From prior post we know that the average value is connected with the energy 166 eV per each nucleon of our World emitted in the electron captures by iron so because the X-axis in the CMB Angular Spectrum is connected with the angular scale then to obtain the upper limit of the energy connected with the maximum we must divide the average energy 166 eV by 0.7937. It means that the energy connected with the upper limit of the maximum is equal to about 209 eV per each nucleon of our World. This energy leads to following value for the upper limit of the maximum of the anisotropic power
A=(209/166)²•3764 micro-K²=5975 micro-K².
This value very well coincides with the result obtained by WMAP!

Now I calculate the upper limit for the zigzag line between I=3 and I=60.
If we assume that the first biggest peak it is a triangle then the upper limit for the zigzag line is
B=2•3764-5975=1553 micro-K²
This value leads to energy equal to 107 eV (the half of energy does not mean that there was transformed the half of mass into H+He+O+Fe+Pu gas because it is energy from the electron captures which is connected with the levels in Fe atoms, this energy is connected with the sizes of the neutron stars). It means that in the first explosions of the typical black holes connected with the zigzag line was frown out
C=(107/209)³100%=13% of the mass
It means that in the first explosions of the typical black holes about 13% of nucleons were transformed into the H+He+O+Fe+Pu gas.

Now the ‘twin peaks’.

The first peak in the twin peaks is connected with the creations of the big stars i.e. with the stars of first generation. The maximal number of the big stars was created in period connected with the minimum between the biggest peak and the first smaller peak. The second peak in the twin peaks is connected with the explosions of the big stars. The maximal number of explosions was in period connected with the minimum between the twin peaks. If we assume that between the birth and the final explosion the sizes of the big stars with time practically did not change then we must assume that the distance between these two twin peaks is connected with expansion of our World. The distance is equal to about 0.1^o. Whole CMB Angular Spectrum is for 90^o. It means that the period between the two twin peaks is equal to
DL=21 billion years•0.1/90=19 million years
We may assume that the era of the big stars lasted about two times longer (i.e. about 40 million years). From the CMB Angular Spectrum also results that the first big stars were created about 220 million years after the Big Bang.

We should also observe very small peaks connected with the condensation of Fe (about 0.047 eV per each nucleon) and with the solidification of Fe (about 0.0029 eV per each nucleon). Today accuracy of measured quantities is to low to measure these effects.

Recapitulation:
I calculated:
-the lower limit for the anisotropy power of the quadrupole,
-the upper limit for the average value of the anisotropy power for the biggest peak,
-the upper limit for the anisotropy power of the zigzag line between I=3 and I=60,
-the upper limit for the maximum anisotropy power of the biggest peak,
-the period determined by the era of the big stars,
-the period which elapsed between the SUPERWORLD----NEUTRINO transition and the beginning of the era of the big stars.
I described:
-the shape of the CMB Angular Spectrum
All these descriptions and values obtained within my theory of structures very well correspond with the results obtained by WMAP, COBE, Spitzer Telescope, SCUBA, and others. The other evidences that my theory of structures is correct you can find in my prior posts (for example there is not in existence the quark-gluon plasma).

The coincidence between the observational facts and my theory suggest between others that:
-the structure of the object before the Big Bang was similar to the structure of the core of baryons and to the structure of the neutrino (they are the analogs of the Ketterle surface for the Fermi gas)
-the age of our World is about 21 billion years
-the radius of the baryonic horizon is about 13 billion light-years
-the dark matter it is the cold baryonic matter
-the dark energy it is the neutrino bulge-bubble created in the SUPERWORLD----NEUTRINO transition.

When, SK, are you going to respond to Duane in post #616?

He does have valid issues for you. I suggest you heed them.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

I have no intention whatever of doing that because all these questions I answered in prior posts. I am not a parrot. Can you not be lazy? For cosmology very important is the CMB Angular Spectrum. I described it in my last posts in details. It is consistent with the results obtained by WMAP. It means that whole my theory is correct, also the Titius-Bode law. In my posts I many times cited the references connected with the observational facts and experimental data which support that my theory is correct. I also cited the references which prove that the mainstream theories are incorrect. For example the LCDM is unable to explain the values for the smallest and greatest multipole moments because this theory is able only to fit the theoretical values to the observational facts for smooth curve applying many spherical harmonics and amplitudes without explanation of physical meaning of them. It is a childish game.

My theory is able explain every problem and I proved it many times making calculations in this thread. Accuracy of obtained results is better than the obtained within the mainstream theories. Most important is fact that in my theory each physical quantity has physical meaning. In the mainstream theories dominates mathematics because authors of them do not understand PHYSICS as a whole.

One more example: as I said before, from the matter frown out by the typical black holes just after the Big Bang were created H, He, O, Fe, Pu(244) (because of the four-neutrino supersymmetry). In the biggest distances of the centers of cosmic structures, in the coldest regions, should be created Fe lumps, BUT ALSO WATER and ICE LUMPS (because there was H and O). In the very high temperature some part of Fe(56) should be transformed into Si(28) (because of the symmetrical decays). And it is consistent with observational facts (we can see it also in the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud)! We know that in the meteors there dominate Fe, ice, Si and O!!!!!! It is the cold baryonic matter.

In my theory all is so simple because it is correct theory.
If the all my posts it is too little to convince you that my theory is correct then in my opinion it means that you are a fanatic of the stupid mainstream theories and it means that next million evidences also do not convince you that my theory is correct. It means that I must end my discussion with you because this discussion is not sensible. It is pity that stupidity does not hurt because then discussion would be more honest.

So your theory does not give an upper limit for the radius of the baryonic horizon and for example 14.0 billion light-years would still be compatible with your theory?

For the baryons there are also next thresholds BUT FOR NUCLEONS THERE ARE ONLY TWO because in the Titius-Bode states are only two neutral pions of different relativistic masses: one is connected with the creation of the possible Titius-Bode states (186.90 MeV), and second in the state d=1 (208.65 MeV) which determines the properties on nucleons.
The mass of second pion we can calculate applying the Einstein special theory of relativity.
The details you can find in my e-book (PDF file). The free e-copy is attainable via www.cosmology-particles.pl

Recapitulation: in the visible Universe dominate the nucleons so there are only two thresholds: for 12.7 billion light-years and for 13.2 billion light-years.

But previously you said that 13.4 and 13.7 billion light years for the radius of the baryonic horizon are also possible?

Zahl, it is not true. These values appear in the mainstream theory.
In my theory I calculated the radius of the CMB horizon, radius of the dark energy horizon (both equal to about 21 billion light-years), the age of the visible Universe (also about 21 billion years), and the threshold for the baryonic horizon (12.7 and 13.2 billion light-years).
The Hubble constant for the CMB is equal to about H=46, the Hubble constant for the baryonic matter is equal to about H=76.

You wrote:

"If we assume that the radius of the baryonic horizon is 13.4 billion light-years then from my theory of structures we obtain:
4% of the visible matter
22% of the dark baryonic matter
74% of the dark energy
The second results are consistent with the obtained by WMAP. "

and

"I calculated the anisotropy power of the quadrupole for the radius of the baryonic horizon equal to 12.7 billion light-years. Such is in my theory the lower limit of this radius then the real value cannot be smaller than 115 micro-K2. In my theory the final result very strongly depends of the value of this radius (and only of this value), for example:
12.7 billion light-years leads to 115 micro-K2
13.4 billion light-years leads to 159 micro-K2
13.7 billion light-years leads to 197 micro-K2"

So the values of 13.4 and 13.7 billion light years for the radius of the baryonic horizon are not compatible with your theory?

They are only examples to show how strongly depends the value of the anisotropic power of the radius of baryonic horizon.
But I must add that the 12.7 and 13.2 they are the thresholds connected with probability. It means that there exists high probability that almost whole baryonic matter is inside the baryonic horizon.

So did I get this right: the radius of the baryonic horizon must be either 12.7 or 13.2 billion light years to be compatible with your theory?

SK, you are close to violating forum rules in that last statement of yours.

As I said, you are jumping the gun with your assumptions. When the New Horizons probe reaches the Kupier Belt, we shall have direct observations to your idea.
And the future probes to succeed WMAP, such as Planck, will look for direct evidence of inflation. What say you concerning THAT mission?

Your infamous use of Titus-Bode appears just silly, because it was meant only for our solar system, not in use of cosmology. It is not a leap in logic to use it in such a manner.

And you have ignored the facts provided by both myself and Neried of how cold baryonic matter in the form you describe cannot account for ALL of what is inferred to be dark matter. I see no reason why not to assume that DM is an exotic substance that defies detection. What is your reason for not believing it to be such?

The post provided by Duane was simply in accordance with the ATM rules. Let me inform you that unanswered questions can lead to a thread being locked, thus bringing a permanent end to these discussions, and to your theory being debunked. If that is your choice, so be it.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

In semiconductors are the potential hills for electrons but because of the quantum effects some electrons can get across. Probability is probability. But because the expansion of the visible Universe was relatively low so almost all baryonic matter should be inside the baryonic horizon. So in calculations we may assume that the radius of the baryonic horizon is not smaller than 12.7 billion light-years and APPROXIMATELY not greater than 13.2.

Are you a soothsayer? I only claim that from my complete theory (all interactions, 7 parameters) results that after the Big Bang there was not period of inflation. I am sure that also the Planck mission will prove it (the WMAP mission alredy proved it). The mainstream theories they are separated elements which do not fit one to another. My theory is coherent.

But sometimes there is the first time. I derived the Titius-Bode law for Particles and in Cosmology from wery well known physical laws.

We only know that today there is about 5 times more the dark matter than the visible matter and that this dark matter it is not a gas. It is consistent with my proposal. From my theory results that there does not exist an exotic matter and till today it is true.

It was not in accordance with the ATM rules because I answered these questions in prior and posterior posts.
It is not my choice - it is your choice, but I am not surprised because you have lied many times. Did you lead Duane into error?

Sylwester Kornowski has been permanently banned for continued personal attacks, as seen here and here, despite warnings to watch his tone.

Since this thread is for a discussion of his ideas, I'm closing it.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.