0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bobolink on 30/04/2020 05:15:31Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htmIn the article it is stated:Time = distance to a given galaxy /its velocity recession = age of the Universe.This is a fatal mistake!!!Based on the expansion rate, the recession velocity is just a temporary velocity that represents its current distance.It is quite clear that in the past the distance was shorter and therefore its recession velocity was lower.Don't forget that at the past this galaxy could be located at a distance of only 3MLY.
Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm
At that time its recession velocity was only 72 Km/s due to Ho H = 72 km/s/MpcSo, it is our obligation to calculate how long time it took the galaxy to increase its distance and velocity.Based on my calculation it should take 12 By just to cross the first 3MLy Quote from: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 19:31:27How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 yearsLet's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.Therefore, that simple calculation doesn't represent the reality of space expansion.How could they make such a sever mistake?
How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 yearsLet's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.
I assume that our scientists have based the expansion rate exactly on this assumption.
This means that the space in-between the emitter and the source has expanded over time. The further away the object the more the expansion and the greater the red shift.Doesn't this tell you something? Maybe over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
Then you are an idiot.
It's time for you to apologize..
Without it, I have no intention to read your messages any more.
If you could prove it, you would surly show you calculation.
Because you posted a link to a page that tells you that it is done by looking at the apparent brightness of Cepheid variable stars.https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
I wonder what happens if we continue the series6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.12 million About 300 KM/S12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.What a weird coincidence.
If over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating, than as we go back on time the velocity must go down.
The current explanation of expansion states that in the first tiny fraction of a second the universe began expanding in the next tiny fraction of a second the universe expanded WAY faster than light and after that fraction of a second it continued too expand at a much slower rate. That rate of expansion slowed over next 10 billion years. Approximately 4 billion years ago the rate of expansion began to accelerate and continues today.
I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years". That means the following:H = 74 km/s/Mparsec. Expansion rate at 3 ly = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?
Well, I clearly know that theory.However, this kind of explanation is just a "hand waiving".We discuss science.
I know there is nothing; no evidence, no math and no experiment that would cause you to admit you are wrong,
I insist to set math for the whole process of the expansion - step by step and verify if it is feasible to get an observable universe of 92 BLY from the size of a 1/10 galaxy in only 13.8 BY.Please no more "hand waiving".Only real math.
Dave, you are ignorant of the BBT and science in general.
You have found an error in my calculation and I have immediately accepted your important verification.
However, the Inflation process can just set the Universe at only 10,000 Ly. No more than that.
Now it is impossible mission for the space expansion to take the Universe from this size and bring it to 92BLY in only 13BY.
or accept the idea that you have lost the case,
Hence, let's close the discussion on this issue by concluding that the science community can't backup the unrealistic expansion by math.
I do care only about science law.
I insist to set math for the whole process of the expansion - step by step and verify if it is feasible to get an observable universe of 92 BLY from the size of a 1/10 galaxy in only 13.8 BY.
I have corrected your math 2 or 3 times, I am done.
If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation.
ow getting back to your conjecture, why do you think it is ok to violate relativity?
So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D. Therefore, you are using the flag of relativity in order to reject the main idea in theory D that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.You wish to prove that this phenomenon contradicts the reality.However, our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/."As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.Actually, if we go back on time, when the BBT had been offered, no one really anticipate that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light. I assume that even Einstein didn't know about it when he came with his relativity theory.This observation was a big surprise to the science community at that time.So, I claim that it is not my task to explain the problem between the observations to the relativity formula.I can just assume that if Einstein knew it on time, he would probably reconsider the whole issue of relativity.In any case, I have estimated that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light and we have clear observation that fully supports this assumption.Therefore, so far you couldn't offer any single observation that could reject Theory D, while I have offered almost unlimited problems in the BBT.Each one of them knocks down the fiction that is called BBT.
It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/05/2020 06:14:21It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.Ha ha, no.
We all know that In 1929, Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos.So the question many asked at that time was, just how much was the expansion slowing?If the space expanding was slowing, than we all could say that it confirms the expectation and therefore it also confirms the BBT."Surprisingly" in the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!
based on the inflation theory, at the early phase of the Universe, the matter was very concentrated and located nearby while the expansion was faster than the speed of light.
as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.
Can I just check on something?Have you abandoned the idea from your first few lines- the idea that the CMBR means that the universe is infinite.Because, if you have not, then your model is clearly not any better than the usual one and you are not in a position to "insist" on anything.SoQuote from: Dave Lev on 07/04/2020 19:10:15Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?On what basis do you claim that it is unrealistic?It is exactly what we would expect (and what was, in fact, predicted) from the very red-shifted black body radiation that arose from the early universe when the expansion cooled it to a point where atoms formed among a high density plasma.If the universe started off hot and dense then expanded, a CMBR is not just "realistic", it's inevitable.Also, if the universe had cold black walls, a CMBR would be inevitable.So there are at least two scenarios where the universe is finite, but there is a CMBR like the one we observe.So it is simply illogical to say that a CMBR implies an infinite universe.Do you understand the difference between these two statements?" a CMBR is consistent with an infinite Universe""a CMBR means that we have an infinite universe"The important difference is that only one of them is true.
I have already deeply explained that there is no contradiction between relativity to Theory D