0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The CMB radiation perfectly fits/explained by theory D.Please let me know if you see any contradiction
What is the meaning of: "it was detected soon after the star was torn to shreds"?."
Did they really see a star when it was a real star,
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:58:13Did they really see a star when it was a real star?Yes"Well-sampled host-subtracted light curves of AT2019qiz were obtained by the ZTF public survey, in the g and r bands, and ATLAS in the c and o bands (effective wavelengths 5330 and 6790 Å). The ZTF light curves were accessed using the Lasair alert broker"fromhttps://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/1/482/5920142
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:58:13Did they really see a star when it was a real star?
I asked about the model universe I described.Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?
Which model?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 12/10/2020 20:36:50Which model?The only one I introduced; the one you have been refusing to discuss.
If I recall it correctly, you have only one Model - The BBT model
Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form, it was opaque.When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?I'm hoping you are not going to take another six months to answer that.Either you accept that it looks like what we see or you explain what it would look like and why it would be different.Remember, this is a purely hypothetical universe, so there is no option for saying anything about its age.I told you it's 14 billion years old.I told you that it expanded nd so on.And, since it's my "model" universe those facts are true.What would you see in the night sky?
You are failing to understand the difference between the BBT which is a real theory
Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago
as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.
Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form
it was opaque.
When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).
And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.
What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?
I'm hoping you are not going to take another six months to answer that.
Well let me explain why the BBT is none realistic:
Hot gas can't be formed from a bang.
electromagnetism must be involved
based on electromagnetic transformation.
Even if there was some imaginary magnetic field,
we already know that it takes time to set the transformation of creating matter.
Therefore, the idea that the whole/most of the BBT energy had been transformed to gas/quarks at a time frame of 10^-6 of a sec is absolutely none realistic.
Therefore, we can end the discussion at this point, as I have proved that the BBT has no ability to generate any sort of gas/quarks/particles or atoms from energy without long stable source of electromagnetic field.
Ok - You can set it at opaque mode
The BBR isn't an issue of temp.
it is an issue of a radiation in a closed environment with walls around it as Cellar/Black box/oven or cavity.
If that opaque universe is considered as a closed environment with walls around it
Well, the question is - what is about the opaque/universe environment?
At the same moment that you eliminate the walls around the early universe -
ou lose the BBR for ever.
How could it be that we get the radiation from T1 (when the radiation carry BBR) and not before or after that time when the Universe has no BBR?
So, the idea that we get today a "ring of bell" from a very specific time of the Universe (T1) is just unrealistic.
Temp due to the expansion - assuming that there is nothing outside the expanding universe, not even space, than there is no way to cool the Universe
Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come back
Therefore, a finite Universe that has no space around it MUST set the night sky paradox,
while I have proved that a real infinite Universe has no problem with that.
I hope that finely you do understand the fatal errors in your unrealistic model.
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Since ordinary light induced transitions can happen on nanosecond timescales, the very high energy stares in the early universe will do things much faster.
As you agree that without EM, matter wouldn't be created,
Now, please answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Let's move on to the baryogenesis -- baryonic matter At around t = 1 x 10^-35 seconds after the Big Banghttps://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htmAt around t = 1 x 10-35 seconds, matter and energy decoupled. Cosmologists call this baryogenesis -- baryonic matter is the kind of matter we can observe. In contrast, we can't observe dark matter, but we know it exists by the way it affects energy and other matter. During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter. There was more matter than anti-matter, so while most particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, some particles survived.Hence, at that time frame the Ultra high energy had been transformed to matter and anti-matter.However, the EM is still missing. The BBT doesn't answer this question.Actually there is a jump from Ultra high energy to matter/anti matter without any explanation how that activity could take place without EM.So, let's stop at this moment of time and please set your explanation how the matter and antimatter could be transformed from the ultra high energy of the Big Bang without EM.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/10/2020 04:10:08Let's move on to the baryogenesis -- baryonic matter At around t = 1 x 10^-35 seconds after the Big Banghttps://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htmAt around t = 1 x 10-35 seconds, matter and energy decoupled. Cosmologists call this baryogenesis -- baryonic matter is the kind of matter we can observe. In contrast, we can't observe dark matter, but we know it exists by the way it affects energy and other matter. During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter. There was more matter than anti-matter, so while most particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, some particles survived.Hence, at that time frame the Ultra high energy had been transformed to matter and anti-matter.However, the EM is still missing. The BBT doesn't answer this question.Actually there is a jump from Ultra high energy to matter/anti matter without any explanation how that activity could take place without EM.So, let's stop at this moment of time and please set your explanation how the matter and antimatter could be transformed from the ultra high energy of the Big Bang without EM.If you actually knew about science you wouldn't waste time writing all that .As it stands, I can write it off in two letters, and make you look a fool.QM
Sorry those two letters shows that if there is a fool between us it is surly not me.
r especially about pair production process.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07Now, please answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Therefore, the total no. of all the particles at the end of the baryogenesis era must be 100% identical to the total no of the antiparticles.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:41:15r especially about pair production process..Yes it is.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:41:15r especially about pair production process..
Based on Google translate: "Pair" - a set of two things used together or regarded as a unit."Therefore1+1 = 1+1 = 2I hope that we all agree that there is no way to assume that:1+1=3Therefore, the total no. of all the particles at the end of the baryogenesis era must be 100% identical to the total no of the antiparticles.Therefore, after the annihilated process not even one particle would be survived.
after the annihilated process not even one particle would be survived.
It's just that you don't know enough physics to realise that.
However, you should understand that the real meaning of "pair" - is one particle/matter plus one antiparticle/antimatter:
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07Now, please answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:41:15r especially about pair production process.Yes it is.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:41:15r especially about pair production process.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:17:38However, you should understand that the real meaning of "pair" - is one particle/matter plus one antiparticle/antimatter:I have understood that for the last 4 decades or so...
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:17:38However, you should understand that the real meaning of "pair" - is one particle/matter plus one antiparticle/antimatter:
If you still assume/believe/wish that there should be more particles than antiparticles, then please introduce the article which can explain/confirm the physical base to that wrong assumption.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07Now, please answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Do you understand that we are actually here?We are matter.
So, while we don't know how it happened
at some point in the past, some process must have produced more matter than antimatter?
Howevr, the unrealistic BBT theory isn't here.
it/BBT
Sorry, this isn't a feasable process.
Once we agree on that, you have to tell us why do you insist to support that unrealistic BBT theory?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:57:33However, the unrealistic BBT theory isn't here.Your idea is also not here.It violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:57:33However, the unrealistic BBT theory isn't here.
EXACTLY THE SAME MUST BE SAID OF THE IDEA THAT YOU KEEP MISLEADINGLY INSISTING ON CALLING "THEORY D".