0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expanding
(75+75 = 150)
Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expandingYou have already confirmed that our scientists do not measure the space itself.I hope that you agree that the expansion is measured ONLY by the observable galaxies.However, our scientists assume that the only explanation for that is space expansion.I claim that there is no way to set expansion in space as there is no way to set expansion in time. Space is fixed and time is fixed.
Therefore, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.1 Day = 86400 SecondsIn one day the expansion rate is 75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km1 Year = 365 daysIn 1,000 years = 365 10^3 days. So, in one 1,000 years the expansion is: 6,480,000 * 365 *10^3 = 2.3652 * 10 ^12 kmWe know that 1 Light Year = 9.4605E+12 KilometersWe also know that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.Therefore, 3 Million LY means9.4605 10^12 * 3 = 28.3815 10^12 kmSo, in order for the expansion to multiply the size 3LY, we need:1,000 year * 28.3815 10^12 km / 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km= 12,000 YearsHence, 12,000 years are needed for the expansion to multiply the distance of two nearby galaxies from 3Light years to 6 Light years.So, in 12,000 years a Volume of the 3x3x3 = 27 Ly cube had been increased to 6x6x6 = 216 lyTherefore, in every 12,000 years the volume of our space is increasing by 6^3/ 3^3 = 3^2 = 8So, let's see the meaning of this expansion:
Action 1
Space expansion:Let's start the timer of the expansion is space of 75 kilometers/ sec while the whole universe size is 3x3x3 Ly:
Due to this expansion in space, each galaxy is moving now at those 75 kilometers/sec in its direction.
Rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:In this case, let's assume that we only fire just one rocket/galaxy at a time from each galaxy and in the direction of the expansion.
Therefore, after 12,000 years we should get the new rockets/ galaxies exactly at the edge of the 6x6x6 cube while each one of them is moving at a velocity of 75Km/secOne up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside - each one of them is moving at 75 kilometers in its direction.So far Rocket over rocket is identical to space expansion.
This is counter to the BBT, General Relativity and others. You need evidence that refutes these ideas, your incredulity is not enough.
I assume you mean 75 kilometer/sec/megaparsec. I also assume you mean 3x3x3 mega ly.
That makes no sense because the constant is 75 kilometers/sec/megaparsec. So for one of the galaxies at a corner of the cube, 3 of the galaxies would have the recession velocity would be 75 km/sec, 3 of the other galaxies would have recession velocity of 106 km/sec and the last galaxy would have a recession velocity of 130 km/sec.
Just look at 2 galaxies to reduce the complexity!Assume that there 2 galaxies that are 1 megaparsec apart. That would mean that they recession velocity as seen by either galaxy would be 75 km/sec. At some later time the galaxies will be 2 megaparsecs apart, when that is true the recession velocity will be 150 km/sec.
There is no directions of expansion! If you blow up a balloon, what direction is it expanding??
The rocket moves away from the galaxy at 75 km/sec. So after 12,000 years the rocket will still be moving through space at 75 km/hour away from the galaxy. However, there is also an increase in distance between the galaxy just from the expansion of space. That also means that there will be a recession velocity between the rocket and the galaxy.
In other words the rocket will be much farther from the galaxy than you calculated.
I think your big misconception is that you still think of galaxies as moving through space instead of space expanding .
Instead of you trying to calculate things without fully understanding the concepts, wouldn't be much easier for you to ask questions about why the rocket and expansion are treated differntly?
I am not going to look at the rest of the post until we can get the basics sorted out.
Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.
So, our scientists have never ever set any sort of measurements with regards to the space.
If you can prove that our scientists are measuring the space (or space frame) than I'm ready to accept the idea that the space is expanding.
"These pulsating stars are vital rungs in what astronomers call the cosmic distance ladder: a set of objects with known distances that, when combined with the speeds at which the objects are moving away from us, reveal the expansion rate of the universe," said Glenn Wahlgren, Spitzer program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington.So, it is clear that our scientists are measuring far end objects as pulsating stars.Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.
Take your time and let me know if you have any question.
Oh for crying out loud, the stars are called cepheid variables.What does "not connected to the space frame" mean?
Correct velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference.
Why is it that no matter where look in the universe we find that outside of our local group the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it is moving away from us?
However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?
Let's assume that we only see one Cepheid moving away from us at 0.5c.So our distance and relative velocity to that Cepheid is very clear.However, with regards to the absolute space frame of reference:Can we verify that one of us is fixed in this absolute frame of reference?
Therefore, as we can't measure the absolute space frame of reference, how can we claim that there is expansion that we measure the space itself?
Are you sure about it?
Let's try to set a simple calculation:If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from usWhat is the direct impact due to the space expansion?The answer is:We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/sTherefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/sIf I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90This galaxy is located at a distance of 58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc) Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLYTherefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/sHowever, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us."The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/sNow, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?
I am afraid that is a stupid question. Of course you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of Relativity so it is not surprising you asked.
However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?You have already confirmed that:Quote from: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 16:09:11Correct velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference.
Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge,
Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge, you didn't answer any question and totally ignored all the key issues.This is a perfect strategy to anyone that has no answers.However, it is quite frustrated as I had higher expectations from you.
To my best knowledge, Einstein had totally rejected the BBT.
He has also rejected his first idea for cosmological constant. He called it: the greatest blunder.
You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.
Yes, it will help.It will help other people who come here. They might not have the background to realise that you are passing of gibberish as science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921NGC 4921 is a barred spiral galaxy in the Coma Cluster, located in the constellation Coma Berenices. It is about 320 million light-years from Earth.So, based on the expansion rate, it should move away at:75 * 320/3 = 8,000 Km/secSurprizingly, it only moves at 5,482 km/s[2]So, if the expansion rate is correct, than this galaxy is moving against the space expansion in our direction at almost 2,500 Km/sec.The expansion theory is working only in expanding the volume of the space/Universe. Therefore, it can only increase the distance between galaxies.If that theory was correct, it was not expected to see any galaxy that contradicts the expansion rate so dramatically.
Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLYSo, if that is correct, than the volume of the universe is increasing by 8 every 1200 years.Therefore, the density of our universe should be reduce by 8 every 1200 Years.This must have severe impact on every aspect including the CMB.This is something that we had to verify by observation in just few years.
1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe2. How could it be that a BBR is created by a Bang (even if we call it big bang)? Please offer valid explanation for that!!!3. How "a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation" could stay in the open space for more than 13.8BY, while I have offered an article from wiki that radiation should cross the space at the speed of light.4. Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point? Why we do not calculate the radiation amplitude by "inverse-square law"Please remember, it was stated at wiki:"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."If you claim that time represents distance, than we are currently moving away from the singularity point of the Big bang at almost the speed of light. However, as the radiation is also moving at the speed of light, than how could it be that we get any radiation from that Big Bang that took place 13.8 BY ago?5. If the universe is finite, than how could it be that we see the same CMB temp in all directions?6. How the CMB could carry a BBR while there are no walls around our finite Universe.Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere. Without a cover for our finite Universe, there is no way to keep a BBR in our universe for so long time.Hence, without real answers for all of those questions, it is clear that our scientists have totally failed in the burden of proof as they can't provide sufficient warrant for their position...
CMBLet me explain why the BBT wouldn't be able to generate the CMB that we see today:1. Bang - A bang by itself can't generate any black body radiation. We should all agree with that. Actually even our scientists do not claim for it. They say that the CMB radiation took place during the "time of photon decoupling" in the recombination epoch. It took place when the temperature of the universe drops below 3000 K or so, when the Universe is ~ 200,000 years old,Please see some information in order to justify that statement:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling."http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr222/Cosmo/Early/recomb.htmlWhen the temperature of the universe drops below 3000 K or so, when the Universe is ~ 200,000 years old, the electrons and nuclei combine to form atoms. No free electrons are running around, so photons can free stream and matter decouples from radiation. This is a fundamentally important time in the Universe's history: called the epoch of recombination. The Universe becomes transparent, we see it as the microwave background, and structure can start to form...However, by that time our yong universe was already long after the inflation time and deep into the expantion. Therefore, at that time (200,000 years after the Big Bang) it was already expanding at almost the speed of light. Therefore, it acts as a container that its walls are moving away at the speed of light.In this condition, there is no way to generate any sort of Black body radiation.In order to set a Black body radiation we must have a back body radiator as: cavity, cellar Oven or container.The radiation must bounces around inside the back body radiator to form the black body radiation.As I have already explained, by the time that the CM had been created, the universe was already expanding at the speed of light. Therefore, the radiation that was created due to the photon decoupling could not bounce back from the "walls of the early Universe (due to the expansion of the Universe), therefore, technically they couldn't create any BBR.Therefore, there is a severe contradiction in the BB theory.In one hand it is stated that the "expansion" have set the photon decoupling process:"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since.... since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time."However that same expansion also have killed any possibility for BBR.Therefore, there must be a Fatal error in the BBT.This is actually just element why the CMB that we see today can't be a created by the BBT.So let me summarize few key points:1. Our universe has no walls around it. This is a pure fiction. Our scientists do not claim for that and even in the BT they do not discuss about it. Therefore, at any given moment the expended Universe couldn't be considered as a black body radiator.2. "time of photon decoupling" - that was almost a brief moment in the whole universe process. If you wish to believe that this exactly brief moment could continue to ring in our Universe forever and ever, you are dreaming.Why the Bang itself isn't ringing? It has much more power and energy that this "poor" photon decoupling process.So, this is just a fiction. It is just so unrealistic to take a brief moment in the life process of our Universe and claim that a specific moment could continue to ring forever.3. Radiation - How could we get any sort of radiation from that time? We know that the radiation is moving at the speed of light. The Universe is also expanding at the speed of light. So, even if there was were walls all around our Universe, that radiation from the "photon decoupling time" can't technically bounce back to us from the walls of the expanding universe. Therefore, there is no way to get this radiation even if there was a constant source of that photon decoupling process from day one of the Universe.3. Same CMB Radiation from all directions - Let's assume that somehow the Photon rings forever and ever. Let's also assume that somehow our universe has some imaginary walls all around. Lets also assume that although the photon is moving at the same speed of light at those imaginary walls than somehow some of the photons cloud bounced back from those walls. Let's also assume that due to some "abra cadabra" they have got their BBR.However, based on simple physics law, we should get the amplitude based on the distance from those imaginary walls. We are clearly not at the center of the Universe. So, how could it be that we get exactly the same amplitude from all directions?4. Red Shift - Any physics law is based on the idea that Red shift should gives a clear indication for a distance from the source of point. You have taken that z=1100 at the CMB and translate it to time from the photon decoupling process. You have totally ignored the distance and the way that the photon had to cross from its creation till the moment that it arrived to us.ConclusionThe assumption that the CMB is due to the photon decoupling process in the BBT is a clear fiction. The CMB is due to our current Universe. It proves that our universe is Infinite.However, you don't want to accept my explanation that is based on clear physics law. Instead you hang on that none relevant idea of photon decoupling process.Ok
BBT violationBased on the BBT, the process starts from "initial state of very high density and high temperature". So, this "initial state of very high density and high temperature" includes all the energy that is needed to create new mass in the entire Universe including dark energy and dark matter, inflation, expansionSo, somehow, at an instant moment the whole energy of the entire Universe had been given to set our entire universe by one single Big Bang.So, the contradictions are as follow: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?6. 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.Conclusions:Sorry, the whole process of Atoms creation including Dark energy and dark matter by the BBT is just unrealistic.However, Theory D offers a real activity to create new atoms and fully meets any physics law including the thermodynamics...
With regards to the CMB:I'm still waiting for your answers about the CMB:
assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
The very simplistic answer is that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe
So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D.
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.Am I correct in that?
If you both claim that you know science better than me, than why don't you answer the following questions with regards to the Expansion rate impact, CMB and BBT?1.Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:34:03Let's try to set a simple calculation:If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from usWhat is the direct impact due to the space expansion?The answer is:We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/sTherefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/sIf I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90This galaxy is located at a distance of 58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc)Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLYTherefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/sHowever, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us."The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/sNow, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?2.Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:21:14https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921NGC 4921 is a barred spiral galaxy in the Coma Cluster, located in the constellation Coma Berenices. It is about 320 million light-years from Earth.So, based on the expansion rate, it should move away at:75 * 320/3 = 8,000 Km/secSurprizingly, it only moves at 5,482 km/s[2]So, if the expansion rate is correct, than this galaxy is moving against the space expansion in our direction at almost 2,500 Km/sec.The expansion theory is working only in expanding the volume of the space/Universe. Therefore, it can only increase the distance between galaxies.If that theory was correct, it was not expected to see any galaxy that contradicts the expansion rate so dramatically.
3.Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:21:14Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLYSo, if that is correct, than the volume of the universe is increasing by 8 every 1200 years.Therefore, the density of our universe should be reduce by 8 every 1200 Years.This must have severe impact on every aspect including the CMB.This is something that we had to verify by observation in just few years.