0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If you need to go from LA to NY don't you need to know the distance before you start your first step?
How can you claim something that is totally incorrect?
In the article it was stated clearly:Entiere Universe - "the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown", So they don't know its size
Can you please explain about those special boundary or wall around our entire Universe/Multiverse?
However, based on real observation, I have proved that the BBT is totally wrong explanation
But that's not the point; WIKI can be wrong, so what it says isn't really important.
What matters is that it goes dark at night.That simple fact is one of the most important observations in cosmology.And you don't understand it because you are not prepared to do your homework.
If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered
Is it clear?
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
herefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light.
our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
Do you mean that the BBT should give us an explanation ONLY for the observable universe?
QuoteDo you mean that the BBT should give us an explanation ONLY for the observable universe?No, it's just that we have no other choice.
Seriously, clever people worked this out a long time ago.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
We can never know the full size of the Universe because we can never observe it.
Yes we have much better choice.Theory D gives a perfect explanation almost for any aspect in our entire Universe.
Yes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:1. Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. In a finite Universe the temperature should be lower as we get closer to the edge. The only solution for that is Infinite Universe. At that Universe, any point acts as a center
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.
Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. I
Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.
QuoteYes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:1. Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. In a finite Universe the temperature should be lower as we get closer to the edge. The only solution for that is Infinite Universe. At that Universe, any point acts as a centerBored Chemist already explained why this is wrong.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 21:49:17However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.That's interesting.Why not post the "solution".Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 21:49:17 Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. ILie 1Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 21:49:17 Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.Lie 2
Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 14:39:49If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offeredHow can I say sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong?Simple.Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong.But the important thing to do is think.Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 14:39:49Is it clear?Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49Is it clear?Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.You say "Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.but you don't understand what it means.You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 17:12:02Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 14:39:49If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offeredHow can I say sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong?Simple.Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong.But the important thing to do is think.Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 14:39:49Is it clear?Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49Is it clear?Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.You say "Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.but you don't understand what it means.You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business? Again, I can't tell if that's just incompetent editing or an attempt at dishonesty.
You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?
I have full confidence that if we could set the simulation for our infinite Universe with its current density, we should get exactly that CMB temperature including its black body radiation.
In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year. That should be clear for all of us.
The assumption that an infinite Universe could keep the light during the night is a poor fiction.We actually get a direct light only from galaxies that are drifting away from us at a velocity which is less than a speed of light.Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.If we will draw a direct line to any direction up to the infinity, we technically should find only in this line an infinite no of galaxies. However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Therefore, we can't see them. Only 0.0..1 are located at the observable aria in our Universe.So, the total galaxies in that line which are still located in the "observable aria" are quite neglected and therefore it goes dark at night.Is it clear?
ExpansionBased on theory D, there is no need to set any space Expansion. We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.So how it really works:Once upon a time a new Born BH had arrived to our Infinite Universe. It was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space.Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field to create new particle pairs at the Photon Sphere. .One particle from those new created pair had been eaten by this first BH, while the opposite charged particle had been ejected outwards to the magnetic accelerator that we call now - accretion disc..This BH will increase its mass and energy over time. It will also be converted to the first Massive BH Hosting a dwarf galaxy. Later on it will be converted to a SMBH hosting a mighty spiral galaxy as the Milky Way.It will generate new atoms, molecular, Asteroids, Moons, Planets, Stars and even it own baby BHs.So, this first BH will become the mother the first matter in the Universe.As we all know - Mothers do not eat their children. Therefore, also this first BH has no intention or need to eat its Babies.Over time all the new created matter, stars BH's…will be ejected outwards from the galaxy.Our milky way acts as one of the biggest stars sprinkler in the Universe. Therefore we see more stars outside the galaxy than in the galaxy.Ejection Velocity (Ve) – The average velocity of the ejected Stars/BHs from the Galaxy.Each one of the second generation baby BHs will start to create new matter and over time it will be converted to MBH. At that time it might host a new dwarf galaxy while creating other new baby BHs. Maturity Time (Tm) - The time that it takes to a new born BH till it starts to generate its own baby BHs. I assume that by that time it will host a dwarf galaxy and it will drift away from its Mother galaxy at Ve velocity.Let's assume that all the new babies are drifting away at the same line direction.So, the second generation of BHs are drifting away from the first BH at Ve. The next generation will drift away from the first BH at 2Ve After n generation, the relative velocity between should be nVe.Based on my calculation:Let's assume that Ve is equal to the orbital velocity of our Sun around the Galaxy = 220 Km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Therefore, after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first galaxy).We can see it as a rocket over rocket over….rocket. 1370 times.It will take it = Te * 1370 generationsTherefore, as far as we look, we see that galaxies are drifting at a faster velocity from us.There is no limit for that velocity.After m * 1370 generations, the relative velocity will be M times the speed of light.As the Universe is infinite, at the far end there are galaxies that are drifting away from us at almost infinite speed.However, please be aware that new born BHs are ejected away in all directions. Therefore, in any nearby aria we see that the galaxies are moving in all directions.Therefore, there is no need to space expansion or dark energy to explain the ultra velocity of the far end galaxies.We only need to understand, that it is achievable after long enough time.There is a clear observation for the ejection process. We see that Triangulum (relatively small spiral galaxy – 40 Billion stars) is directly drifting away from it mother Andromeda (A supper massive spiral galaxy with about one Million Billion stars)As they are drifting away from each other, they set hydrogen "bridge" between them:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611193632.htm"The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.
I do believe that anyone in this forum that takes the effort to open new tread and presents his ideas in science represents his own Truth.
Unfortunately, as expected, you didn't take the effort to read my explanations.
I have never got from you any positive reply as your main task is focusing on the Negative.
Your approach aim to knock down any person that wishes to get better understanding in science.
We can agree or disagree with any point of view.
If someone considers that the other one is liar, than he is the real liar.
"the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe."
... a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.