0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, if the universe is infinitely old, and they are young, what caused them?Or, if you prefer, what caused their (great) grandparents?
If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?
Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.
Given that galaxies dissipate huge amounts of power, how come they haven't burned out yet?Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 07:19:35However, the age of any single galaxy should be limited, shouldn't it?Thanks for your great question. Actually I think about it for quite long time. In one hand it is quite logical to assume that the age of any galaxy should be limited. However, on the other hand, why a galaxy as a milky way can't live almost forever?In any case, as the SMBH increases its mass over time, it should carry more mass in the galaxy. Andromeda is quite bigger than the Milky Way. Therefore, it should be older.Therefore, the real age is setting by the SMBH itself.For any particle that it contribute to our Universe it eats one.So, the oldest objects in our Universe are the biggest SMBHsSomehow it seems that those ultra high SMBH do not carry a galaxy.So, there is good chance that at some point of his life, our SMBH will eject all the mass around it and live as one of those mighty old SMBH as Magnetar or Pulsar.
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?
I don't fully understand your following question If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
You can't magically add energy to keep the whole system going. It's all because of the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to entropy.
QuoteIf that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:48:12Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.And now you've demonstrated that you don't understand special relativity.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:48:12Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 13/04/2020 22:09:55You can't magically add energy to keep the whole system going. It's all because of the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to entropy.Except that's exactly what he proposes. He thinks that black holes can literally create matter and energy.
On top of all of that, he thinks that somehow does not violate conservation of mass-energy. My attempt to explain to him that the creation of mass-energy, by definition, violates conservation of mass-energy was completely lost on him. I absolutely could not make him understand that.
Please let me know if you still see any violation in the first law of thermodynamics.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 20:01:38 I don't fully understand your following question If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?OK, answer the other one.Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 19:46:03Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
If new energy is created, then the first law has been violated.
There is no point in me continuing. I know from past experience that you cannot be reasoned with. I'm done.
Please don't give up.
The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law
There is absolutely no point in me continuing this because you constantly twist the definitions of scientific terms to suit your agenda.
But if you don't believe me, why don't you go to the "AskScience" section on Reddit and ask them if the creation of new energy violates conservation of energy?
QuoteThe creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law..proves it.
Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 20:07:30Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 20:01:38 I don't fully understand your following question If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?OK, answer the other one.Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 19:46:03Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
QuoteSorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.And yet you say that creating energy doesn't violate the principle that says that energy can't be created.
Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.I just present the two theories in front of our Eyes.Theory D doesn't contradict any law or scientific terms by creating one particle pair in photosphere of a BH in a given moment. Our scientists see that activity in real action!We have deeply discussed about the virtual pair scientific term around the BH/SMBH. You have told me clearly that in order to convert those virtual particles that orbits at the speed of light to real particles with real mass, an energy transformation which is equivalent to their mass should be taken by the magnetic field from the rotation of the spinning BH. You didn't claim that also their orbital velocity should be taken from the magnetic field. .The orbital velocity for those virtual/real particles is dictated by the BH ultra high gravity force.Therefore, the added kinetic energy that comes for free by the BH gravity force is the base for the whole mass creation cycle in our Universe.Please - what is wrong with this process?
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
However, as usual, it seems as an impossible mission for you to read it all..
Actually, our scientists have no basic clue about the real age of stars.
Do you mean: why stars can live so long time?
I accept your point that, at first glance the BB looks like a violation of the conservation laws.It's not.If you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something, then say so.
1. Energy source for the BBT: What is the source for "high density and high temperature"? What does it mean high density? density of what? density of matter or density of energy? How that kind of high density and temperature had been created? If you can't show the source of energy, than there is a severe violation of thermodynamics law. 2. Inflation & Expansion in space -Is it feasible to set an inflation and expansion in space by any sort of bang?What kind of physics law can accept the idea of expansion in space due to that bang?Did we ever try to calculate the energy that is needed to set that kind of activity?3. Particle creation: ""After its initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms."Can you please show the physics law that can permit the creation of particles from pure energy as a bang?It seems that our scientists know for sure that there is no physics law that can accept the idea of creating mass from a bang.Therefore, they don't claim for that. They only say that there was a bang and than "the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles"However, we know that the only way to create new particles is by magnetic transformation of energy to real particles/mass in magnetic acceleration. No other process in the whole universe can set even tinny particle without that magnetic transformation. Our scientists do not claim that a magnetic accelerator had been created after the bang. Therefore, how can the estimate that just by cooling the Universe particles could be created from the high energy?4. Particle pair creation and AnnihilationLet's assume that somehow there was a creation of partials. However, particles should be created in a pair.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum.["However, without any ability to separate between the pair at the moment of creation, than those new born particle pair should be eliminated instantly at the same moment of their creation by the following process:Annihilation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#ExamplesIn particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons.[1"The only force that can split between the particle pair is Lorenz force that is based on magnetic field. Without any source for magnetic field in the BBT activity, no particle could be survived due to annihilation process.5. Mean Lifetime for Particle Decayhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/meanlif.html"The decay of particles is commonly expressed in terms of half-life, decay constant or mean lifetime. The probability for decay can be expressed as a distribution function"So, any new created particle has a "probability for decay". the time between the creation of particle in the BBT to the time of Atom creation is very critical. If you wait too long, you have lost all the new created particles.6. Atom creation - The Atom creation took place about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. That might be too long for any particle to survive. However, let's assume that somehow some particles had left till this moment of time.However, how can the BBT converts those survived particles to real Atoms? Please remember that due to the inflation and space expansion, the space itself is increasing at Ultra high velocity. so, the particles almost doesn't move. It is the space itself that is increasing dramatically. That cause a severe problem. How the particles can meet each other in order to set a new Atom? Without any possibility to set a contact between particles and without any magnetic field how any new atom could be created?7. Dark matter and dark energy - Somehow it seems that our scientists have no clue about the dark matter and dark energy although they includes more than 90 % of the total energy in the Universe. There is no info how that "dark" had been created by the BBT.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 08:00:31If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 08:00:31If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?
We have experimental data about fusion rates.We have quite good data about the age of the Earth from radioactive dating, but there's no need for that level of sophistication. Your figures are just not plausible. If the Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium.
Even if you say that a star lasts a quintillion years (at which point everyone will laugh at you) I will point out that the Universe has- in your view, been round infinitely longer than that, so the stars (and their successors) should have died out long ago.
Your data is incorrect as your theory is incorrect.
Do you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?
Why do you claim that: "If Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium"?
Once it die it dies forever. Its mass could be lost in space
My data is the half life of uranium, which I can measure, and the fact that I can find uranium about the place which is obviously true.It's not a "theory" as you put it, it's an observation.
QuoteDo you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?Yes; it does.
if you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something, then say so.
Can you please explain how can you fit real distance of 46BLY in only 13BY.How the CMB radiation that had emitted 13 BY ago could get to us after crossing real distance of 46BLY?