Post by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
1. Introduction
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.
The ability of the BH/SMBH to generate new particle pair is the foundation for the evolvement of our Universe
Therefore, the Universe is increasing its mass and its size over time.
Theory D is based on the following pillars:
Darwin, Fred Hoyle, Newton and Einstein.
No dark matter or dark energy is needed for this theory. What we see is what we have.
No need for inflation, no need for expansion and no need for the BBT.
If we could go back in time (to the infinity) we would find that only one BH was needed to generate our wonderful infinite Universe.
I will introduce the whole theory step by step.
2. Fred Hoyle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949."
"Hoyle, unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe"
Fred Hoyle estimated that galaxies should have the ability to produce new matter, but he did not foresee the recent developments and the idea of particle accelerator, and therefore couldn't explain how new mass had been created. At his time our scientists couldn't observe the ejection of mass from the accretion disc around the SMBH.
3. The "Universal Darwinism
Universal Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
"Universal Darwinism - The idea is to formulate a generalized version of the mechanisms… so that they can be applied to explain evolution in a wide variety of other domains"
The first requirement in Darwin approach is that the pattern can "survive" (maintain, be retained) long enough or "reproduce"
The Big bang isn't a reproduce pattern. Therefore it doesn't meet even the basic requirement for the Darwinism approach. Hence, if Darwin was living today, he would probably reject the Big bang theory.
4. Albert Einstein
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""
https://owlcation.com/stem/Einstiens-Cosmolgical-Constant-and-the-Expansion-of-the-Universe
"In fact, he felt it was his “greatest blunder” which had no merit in science. That supposed mistake turns out to be the cosmological constant"
Therefore, Einstein has told us clear and laud that it is forbidden to use that cosmological constant in his formula. By using that constant, we actually contradict his formula. So, we can't call it Einstein formula while we are using there a constant that is considered as his "greatest blunder".
Without that cosmological constant, there is no mathematical confirmation for the BBT.
That shows that the mathematical confirmation for the BBT is based on Einstein greatest blunder.
In any case, if our scientists insist to use that constant in Einstein formula, than they shouldn't call it "Einstein formula" anymore!!!
5. The universal common ancestor by Darwin
The "universal common ancestor" theory was first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/5/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago".
However, this "single-celled organism" must have the ability to multiply/generate other organism cell.
In the same token, as all life on Earth had been evolved from a single-celled organism, than all the variety of matter, galaxies, BH, SMBH, Stars, Planets...have been evolved from a Single cell of matter.
That "Single cell of matter" is the First matter that had been created in the whole Universe. However, it must also have the ability to multiply/generate other cell of matter
Therefore, everything we see in our Universe is a direct outcome from that first single cell of matter..
We know that a BH/SMBH can generate a new Particle pair.
We also know that the accretion disc around a SMBH is full with hot plasma (10^9 c) that orbiting at 0.3 speed of light.
Our scientists call it: "accretion disc" as they wish to believe that it accretes matter from outside. However, they clearly see that the matter in this disc is actually ejected outwards. Therefore, this disc should be called - Excretion Disc
So, the SMBH in our galaxy is actually generates new matter that is ejected outwards from its accretion disc (or actually from its excretion disc).
Therefore, we can claim that the first BH/SMBH in the Universe could be considered as the first Single cell of matter that had the ability to generate new matter.
The creation of that first BH/SMBH could be explained by some sort of Big Bang (as it is in our BBT Theory) or small bang. However, In the BBT, all the matter in the whole Universe had to be created in that Big Bang. In Theory-D only a single BH is needed for the creation of the whole infinite Universe.
6. Repeatable - Natural activity
Any nature activity must be repeatable. For example: Rain, morning, evening, supernova birth and even death.
Steady state by wiki: "In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands". This is a repeatable activity.
Theory D is based on this idea. Therefore, it meets the criteria of natural activity and Darwinism approach.
However, The Big bang took place only once in the History of the Universe. Therefore, it doesn't meet the criteria of natural activity.
7. Energy source for the BBT
Why our scientists don't try to explain the scenario before the BBT?
Could it be that there was something before the Big bang or just nothing?
I agree to accept the idea that something could be created out of nothing.
Darwin has told us that one living cell could be the source for the whole variety of life that we see. Therefore, we all can agree that first living cell could be created out of nothing. However, how can we agree that everything could be created at the same moment from nothing or even from something if our universe is infinite?
The BBT doesn't explain what is the source of energy for all the matter in the Universe.
It is just stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high-density and high-temperature"
So, what is the source for that high density and high temperature?
What is the meaning of high density?
Density of what? Is it some sort of a matter? If so, than why do we need the Big bang if the matter is already there? How any sort of density can be converted into real matter by bang without any energy transformation as electromagnetic field?
Please be aware - Not even one word about energy in the BBT…
How could it be that our scientists speak on the name of science and the first law of thermodynamics (when it comes to different theory), while they don't have a basic clue for the source of energy (or high density) for the BBT activity?
8. Mass v.s Energy in the BBT
Einstein has stated that mass can be converted to Energy by:
E = mc^2
In the same token we can claim that Energy can be converted to mass
m = E / c^2
We can convert Atom mass to energy by a bang. We call it Atom bomb or fusion. However, can we convert energy to atom?
Let's verify the mass/energy in one electron:
Its energy is - 0.511 MeV. That electron represents an energy cell with mass of 9.1093×10^−31 kg.
Therefore, in order to create a single particle, somehow we need to find the source of energy for that mass creation and a special process is needed.
How a bang by itself can convert heat or density into real Atom without real source of energy and especially without acceleration and electromagnetism?
9. Divine power?
Why our scientists insist to ignore the process before the big bang? If they don't have any responsibility for that, than who is taking care about the time before that Big bang? Do we need to think about some divine power?
If a divine power is needed, why do we need the BBT? Why can't we just accept the bible as is?
If they can't clearly explain the source for the creation of the whole mass in the Universe due to the Big Bang, than this theory should be set in the garbage of the history.
10. SMBH generates magnetic field
Black Holes & Time Warps states that a spinning black hole with a net electric charge will have a magnetic field.
Galactic nucleus - the nucleus of the Spiral galaxy is supper massive black hole – Wikipedia: "A supper massive black hole defined mass ranges from100 thousand to 10 billion solar masses. Scientists tend to assume that such a black hole exists at the center of most galaxies in the universe, including the Milky Way." It holds around hundreds of billions of stars. So clearly, the nucleus creates tremendous power and energy.
The spin of the SMBH generates ultra powerful magnetic field.
"A team of researchers has measured the magnetic fields in the vicinity of the suppermassive black hole at the center of NGC 1052."
https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-measure-magnetic-fields-in-the-vicinity-of-a-black-hole/
Two particle jets shoot out from the heart of active galaxy NGC 1052 at the speed of light, apparently originating in the vicinity of a massive black hole.
The team concludes that the magnetic fields provide enough magnetic energy to power the twin jets.
Similar particle jet stream stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16
"The newfound jets may be related to mysterious gamma-ray bubbles that Fermi detected in 2010. Those bubbles also stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. However, where the bubbles are perpendicular to the galactic plane, the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. This may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the suppermassive black hole.
"Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"
In order to blow those kind of particles jet stream to that distance of 27,000 LY it is clear that an Ultra Magnetic field is needed.
ONLY SMBH Can generate that kind of magnetic field!!!
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:22:01
The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does.
Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So, new pair of particles can be created around a BH or SMBH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton."
" if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
In order to produce a positron-electron pair, 1.022 MeV of rotational kinetic energy is extracted from the BH
Let's assume that we are looking down on the most inwards side of the accretion disk (or even below) from above.
Let's also assume that electron and positron had been created at some radius below the inmost accretion ring. At the moment of creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
Please remember that at the moment of creation, the new created particles pair must fully meet the orbital speed for the attitude (or radius) from the SMBH. It must fully obey to Newton orbital law.
We can get better understanding by look at the following Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
How Lorentz force works on those new particles pair?
In order to get better understanding let's look at the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=135&v=RqSode4HZrE&feature=emb_title
The North/South Poles of the SMBH is up/down with reference to their orbital direction. Therefore, based on that video, one charged particle should be deflected to the left while the other one would be deflected right. Hence, one particle should be deflected inwards to the SMBH direction, while the other one would be deflected outwards to the direction of the accretion disc.
The deflection inwards would decrease its altitude or radius from the SMBH. Therefore, it will face stronger gravity force from the SMBH.
That radius change will force it to fall in as its current orbital velocity would be too low. As it is stated in the following video:
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth" (or to the SMBH in our case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
On the other hand, the other particles must be deflected outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, its speed would be too high with reference to its current radius. Even a small deflection should bring it under the influence of the inwards side of the accretion disc. At that aria it would have to obey to the magnetic forces/pressures that are generated by the accretion disc itself. We know that the average orbital velocity at the accretion disc is about 0.3c. So, the new arrival particle might bang with the other particles already orbiting at the inwards side of the accretion ring and reduces its velocity from almost the speed of light to about 0.3c. At that moment it would become a new member at the plasma.
With regards to temperature – A new created particle must come with Ultra high temp. Adding to that the ultra high pressures, forces, Electric current flow and fusion activity in the plasma would increase the temp to almost 10^9 c at the accretion disc.
This separation deflection process is vital. Without it, any new created particle pair would be eliminated at the same moment of their creation as each particle carry a negative charged with reference to the other.
Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.
12. Accretion or excretion disc?
The SMBH doesn't eat any atom or particle from the Accretion disc. It is eating only the charged particles that had been forced to fall in due to Lorentz force. In the same token, the other negative charged (out of the new created pairs) are ejected to the accretion disc due to the same Lorentz force.
Therefore, all the matter in that disc had been created by the transformation of the energy from the SMBH using the Ultra magnetic field. Noting could come from outside!!!
Actually the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards:
Milky Way's Giant Black Hole Spits Out Its Food http://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The new findings show definitively that most of the matter in the gas cloud surrounding the black hole is ejected out into space, which explains why it doesn't release light on its way in to be eaten."
This is an indication that new matter is ejected from the Milky Way supper massive black hole.
It is also clear that the Black hole does not eat any mass.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l8_p7.html
"Using the highest resolution IR cameras available, astronomers have repeatedly observed the stars orbiting around Sgr A*. They have measured the orbit of a star that comes within 17 light-hours of the object in the core of our Galaxy, which is a distance that is only a few times larger than the orbit of Pluto around the Sun."
So, as the suppermassive black hole does not eat this star which is located so close it doesn't eat any mass at all.
It is also stated: "The dust gets thicker and thicker as we look into the center of the Galaxy."
This is an indication that the supper massive black hole does not eat any mass. If it was eating a mass then the dust should be thinner as we look into the core of galaxy.
If the SMBH was eating matter from outside than after billions years of "stars eating" we should expect that the center of spiral galaxy around the SMBH should be quite empty of mass and stars.
But in contrary, we actually see high concentrate of mass and new forming stars at the center. Based on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
That by itself proves that the SMBH is not eating any star or mass from outside. The SMBH is the biggest manufacturer for Hydrogen Atoms and for any molecular that is available in our galaxy.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called – excretion disc.
13. Expansion
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#37a6bfd255df
"The idea of the Big Bang first came about back in the 1920s and 1930s. When we looked out at distant galaxies, we discovered something peculiar: the farther away from us they were, the faster they appeared to be receding from us. According to the predictions of Einstein's General Relativity, a static Universe would be gravitationally unstable; everything needed to either be moving away from one another or collapsing towards one another if the fabric of space obeyed his laws. The observation of this apparent recession taught us that the Universe was expanding today, and if things are getting farther apart as time goes on, it means they were closer together in the distant past."
Let's focus on: "The observation of this apparent recession taught us that the Universe was expanding today, and if things are getting farther apart as time goes on, it means they were closer together in the distant past."
Let's add to that the following concept by Elbert Einstein and Fred Hoyle:
https://guardianlv.com/2014/03/albert-einstein-debunked-the-big-bang-theory/
"According to the translation, the physicist (Elbert Einstein..) believed that “for the density to remain constant new particles of matter must be continually formed,” which confirmed Hoyle’s findings."
Therefore, if new matter is created as the Universe expands the density of the Universe can stay the same. Actually according to Theory D, the space in the Universe does not expand. Only the matters in our Universe (galaxies) are expanding in all directions.
Theory D confirms the predictions of Einstein's General Relativity - "Everything needed to be moving away from one another"!
However, we still need to explain the following observation: "the farther away from us they were, the faster they appeared to be receding from us."
Theory D gives a perfect explanation also for that. More to come…
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/03/2020 17:22:51
This is a key element in our understanding how gravity really works.
Let's look at Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
In order to get circular orbital motion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
That orbital velocity (Vo) is also called perpendicular velocity or magic velocity. The formula is as follow:
Vo ^2 = G M / r
We can also get better understanding by the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
Diagram of orbital motion of a satellite around the Earth, showing perpendicular velocity and acceleration (force) vectors.
We see that (v) represents the orbital velocity vector or Vo, while (a) represents the falling in acceleration vector.
They are actually orthogonal to each other.
The velocity vector v represents the direction of the kinetic orbital energy at any given moment:
Eko (Kinetic orbital energy) = 1/2 m Vo ^2 / r
The acceleration (a) represents the direction of the potential energy (Ep).
Ep (potential energy) = G M m / r
As those energies are orthogonal to each other, by increasing or decreasing one of them, there will be no impact on the other one.
We can get a confirmation for that in the following explanation by Newton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth"
Newton didn't say that as the satellite falls back to earth it will increase its orbital velocity!!!
In order to get better understanding, let's assume that we could shut down the gravity force in the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
It is clear that the satellite will continue to move on in a direct line with the same velocity Vo due to its momentum.
So, it will move in the same direction from the point of losing the gravity and it will keep its last velocity and its kinetic energy due to that velocity.
Ek (at the moment of losing gravity) = EKo = 1/2 m Vo^2 /r
On the other hand, if we could stop completely the orbital motion at a single moment, than the satellite should fall in directly to the center of Earth.
Converting the potential energy into falling in kinetic energy won't increase or decrease the orbital energy.
For example let's look at a satellite in a circular orbiting cycle around the earth. Its orbital velocity is Vo1 and its radius is r1.
Let's assume that due to external force it reduces its radius to r2 while its orbital velocity is still Vo1,
However, as Vo1 is lower than the requested Vo2, than this satellite will start to fall in. During this process of falling inwards, it will keep its orbital velocity Vo1 till the impact with the earth.
Hence, there will be no transformation of energy from the potential energy to the orbital kinetic energy. There is no way to increase the orbital velocity by decreasing the potential energy
Therefore, the idea that matter can fall into the accretion disc and increases its orbital velocity to almost 0.3c is a fiction!!!
Newton told us with its Cannon ball experimental that if an object is in orbital circular around a main mass, once it reduces its radius, the current orbital velocity will be too low than the requested orbital velocity. As the potential energy can't be transformed to any sort of orbital energy, that object MUST fall in and collide with the main mass.
Therefore, the ONLY way to gain 0.3c at the accretion disc – is JUST due to new particle/matter that is ejected outwards (below the inmost ring of the accretion disc)
That is another confirmation for the idea of new mass creation around the SMBH.
So, matter in a circular orbital system can't increase its orbital velocity while decreasing the radius
However, on the other direction it can work.
The reason from that is: Orbital friction
15. Orbital Friction:
The orbital kinetic energy is Eko:
Eko (Kinetic orbital energy) = 1/2 m Vo ^2 / r
However, there is a friction in orbital system.
That friction could be for example due to Tidal
We know that Tidal power draws energy from the Moon's orbit.
So let's assume that ΔEt represents the energy that tidal draws from the orbital energy at a given time Δt.
Therefore, the correct formula for Ekof (with friction) should be as follow
Ekof (Eko with frictiont) = Eko – ΔEt
So, if we start at T=0
Eko (at T=0) = 1/2 m Vo1 ^2 / r1
At T = Δt
Ekof (at T= Δt) = 1/2 m Vo2 ^2 / r2 = 1/2 m Vo1 ^2 / r1 – ΔEt
The outcome is:
Vo2 ≤ Vo1 (it is equal if ΔEt = 0)
While
r2 ≥ r1 (it is equal if ΔEt = 0)
Therefore, due to friction (as tidal) orbital objects should increase the radius and decrease the orbital velocity over time.
Hence, any orbital system with a friction (as tidal) represents an orbit that is spiraling outwards.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2020 17:37:49
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.Since you started with a non sequitur, I stopped reading at this point.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/03/2020 17:40:56
I'm really excited. I have just found an article which confirms the creation zone of new particles between the accretion ring and the event horizon.
This aria is called – Photon sphere (I was not aware about that name).
Please look at the following image:
https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/black-hole.cfm
It is stated:
"Just outside the event horizon of the BH, gravity is strong enough to bend their paths so that we see a bright ring surrounding a roughly circular dark shadow."
However, they think that this radiation is coming from the outwards accretion disc or actually from the plasma in that accretion disc:
"Although the black hole itself is dark, photons are emitted from nearby hot plasma in jets or an accretion disc."
"As charged particles go around, they accelerate, causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation."
This is a severe mistake.
As Newton has told us very clear in his cannon ball experimental, matter that moves to lower radius, can't increase the orbital velocity and can't get higher orbital acceleration.
Therefore, the only way to generate this radiation between the event horizon to the innermost accretion ring, is by new created particle pairs at the photon sphere.
Due to the location of that zone it is also clear that the orbital velocity should be much higher than just 0.3c (as it is in the accretion disc). I would assume that the orbital velocity at the Photon sphere is almost as high as the speed of light.
The innermost accretion ring is called – innermost stable orbit. That shows that our scientists see the difference between the stable orbit at the innermost excretion ring to the aria of the new pair production that is called Photon sphere.
They also claim that the plasma in the accretion disc is made of broken Atoms - free electrons and nuclei.
"Black holes trap nearby gases in their gravitational pull and whip them around in an orbit at immense speeds. The gas material gets very hot and breaks apart into its constituent positive nuclei and negative electrons, not bound together as an atom. This hot mass of free electrons and nuclei is called a plasma."
But they don't understand that the process works the other way. The excretion disc doesn't break down the atoms to positive nuclei and negative electrons in that plasma. If that was the case, than as most of that matter is ejected outwards, we should see mainly broken atoms that are ejected from the excretion disc. However, we mainly see real Atoms and molecular that are ejected from the excretion disc. That ejected matter is actually ejected upwards/downwards as Twin molecular jet stream.
Therefore, the excretion disc is actually forming new Atoms and molecular from the new created particles that are ejected to that aria from the Photon sphere.
16. Twin Molecular jet stream
The excretion disc is the biggest Atoms/molecular manufacturer in our Universe. Under Ultra high Pressure, Electromagnetism, High temp 10^9 c, High electric current, all the variety of Atoms and molecular are created in the plasma that orbits at 0.3c. Eventually the new matter is elected outwards from the excretion disc.
The SMBH' Ultra high magnetic power grab the ejected molecular and boosts them upwards/downwards directly in line with the North/south SMBH' magnetic poles. Those twin molecular jets are lifted at 0.8c to 27,000 LY above/below the galactic disc.
Please look at the image of that twin molecular jets:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/ghostlygamma.jpg
Our scientists have found another observation for that process:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/matter-falling-into-black-hole-06440.html
“We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole.”
This far end galaxy is located at about one Billion LY away. We are looking at that galaxy directly from above.
Our scientists assume that they have traced an Earth-sized clump of matter that is moving at 0.3c directly to SMBH. This is absolutely incorrect due to the following reasons:
The whole accretion disc rotates according the SMBH spinning direction and under its mighty electromagnetism force and pressure. Therefore, there is no room for internal rings to move in different angels or opposite directions.
Therefore, the following assumption of the accretion structure is a pure fantasy:
http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge5/image_6440_2e-PG1211-143.jpg
Hence, the idea that this Earth-sized clump of matter could be created due to a collision between two nearby accretion rings is a pure fantasy. Even we could set there that Earth-sized clump of matter, it won't be able to cross above or below the accretion disc due to the Ultra pressure there. It will have to join all the other matter in the plasma and orbits at 0.3c around the SMBH. So, there is no way for that Earth-sized clump of matter to bypass the accretion disc and move DIRECTLY to the SMBH.
Hence, the process works as follow:
That Earth-sized clump of matter had been ejected outwards from the excretion disc. The Mighty SMBH' magnetic power grab that matter and boosts it at 0.8c to the twin molecular jets (up to 27,000 Ly above and below the SMBH). Therefore, our scientists see the Earth-sized clump of matter as it moves directly to the SMBH. Our scientists think that it is moving to the SMBH, but in reality it is moving far above/below the SMBH. They monitor 0.3c, but in it moves at 0.8c to the upwards or downwards poles. However, as they see the galaxy and the Earth-sized clump of matter directly from above at one billion LY away, they can't see the difference.
However, if they will verify again the records they might find that as the Earth-sized clump of matter comes closer to the SMBH its velocity is going down due to the structure of the molecular jet stream.
There is high benefit for those twin jets stream.
By the time that the New Atoms and molecular (as water) are ejected from the excretion disc, they also include many particles that had not been converted to real Atom/Molecular. Therefore, a cleaning process is needed. As the stream is boosted upwards, heavy mature atoms/molecular are falling back to the galactic disc, while the none mature particles are pushed away from the galactic disc.
We see a constant flow of jet stream due to the constant production of new molecular by the excretion disc. If the excretion disc was a real accretion disc, eating stars from time to time, we would have to see it as a broken stream. So, for each time that it eats something, it also ejects 99% of that something. However, we don't see any fragmentation in the molecular jet stream. Therefore, this is one more evidence that the excretion disc is the biggest molecular manufacturer in the Galaxy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2020 18:48:26
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/03/2020 16:45:14
As the mature molecular/Atoms fall back to the galactic disc from the twin molecular jet stream, they grab into gas clouds as G1 and G2:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2892301/Mystery-cloud-near-Milky-Way-s-black-hole-Unidentified-gas-drifted-nearby-massive-star.html
"In this image the red part of the G2 cloud is seen in orbit around the black hole (path shown in solid white). The blue part is the second cloud, G1. The distance from red to blue is 900 times the Earth-sun distance."
"In 2013, the G2 gas cloud made its closest approach to the black hole, a distance of 20 light hours - about five times the distance of our sun to Neptune."
"Both are in a similar orbit, suggesting they are part of the same stream of gas - and they may just be one in a series of gas clouds deposited around the black hole by a star."
So, our scientists consider that they are part of the same stream of gas, but they don't have a clue that this gas is coming from the molecular in the twin molecular jet stream that fall to the galactic disc.
G1 and G2 are not there by themselves. There are more gas clouds:
https://www.universetoday.com/144654/more-mysterious-space-blobs-have-been-found-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way/
"And recently, a team from UCLA’s Galactic Center Orbits Initiative detected a series of compact objects that also orbit the SMBH. These objects look like clouds of gas but behave like stars, depending on how close they are in their orbits to Sagittarius A*".
"In 2018…identify three more of these objects (G3, G4, and G5) near the galaxy’s center. Since that time, a total of six objects have been identified in this region (G1 – G6)".
In those Gas clouds new Star forming activity takes place. There is an evidence for star in G2:
"The most recent observations also showed that while the gas from G2’s outer shell was stretched dramatically, the dust contained inside did not get stretched much. This means that something kept the dust compact, which is compelling evidence that star could be inside G2. "
Due to the high star forming activity at those gas clouds, there is high concentration of new born stars near the SMBH:
"At the center of our galaxy lies a region where roughly 10 million stars are packed into just 1 parsec (3.25 light-years) of space."
If the SMBH had any intention to eat stars from outside, it will probably eat them all. But the high concentration of stars near the SMBH proves that the SMBH has no intention to eat even one atom from outside.
We see further confirmation for new star forming activity near the SMBH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
"The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the Milky Way, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity".
In order to understand that process, let's look at Pig sty
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/ED8KKW/pig-in-muddy-pigsty-uk-ED8KKW.jpg
What do we see?
Dung over dung everywhere. Do you think that this pig has any intention to eat its dung?
Let's try to compare that pig to the SMBH. In this case, the dung that we see would represent the matter that had been ejected from the excretion disc. Hence, the SMBH has no intention to eat its dung. It only eats one particle from the new created particle pair at the Photon Sphere. The other particle is ejected outwards from the SMBH. So, it is a product that is created by the SMBH, but it is ejected outwards as some sort of a dung.
Therefore, we can claim that our body, our solar system, our galaxy and the whole universe is made of SMBH' dung.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2020 17:03:10
There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/03/2020 17:34:08
There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.Didn't you see my reply at:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78586.0
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/03/2020 05:44:46
In the following article there is a brief explanation about that activity:
https://www.space.com/4584-spin-stars-born.html
"New stars form from enormous clouds of gas and dust collapse under their own gravity into dense spheres. The packed cores are ignited by thermonuclear reactions. As they collapse, the clouds rotate, and like an ice skater pulling in his arms while spinning, rotation speed increases as the collapsing cloud gets smaller."
However, there is a problem with this concept. A gas cloud has no arms like "Ice skater". Therefore, it can't increase its spinning. Our scientists also have no clue about the dissipation of the rotational energy as stated:
" Some of this rotation energy, called angular momentum, must be dissipated before the star can contract completely. How this happens, though, is unknown."
It is also stated that the centrifugal force will prevent from the gas in the cloud to collapse:
"Given the size difference between an ordinary star like our sun and a typical molecular cloud, if the rotation was allowed to increase as the cloud collapsed, the [apparent] centrifugal forces would never allow the material to collapse into anything small enough to form a star,"
So, how it really works? Our scientists assume that magnetic field is needed.
"A new model by Chrysostomou and colleagues suggests excess material and energy are borne away from the protostar along helical magnetic field lines that surround the star."
Our scientists assume that the Milky way is filled with magnetic field:
"Our Milky Way is filled with magnetic fields, which are generated any time charged particles move about. The new model predicts that field lines around a cloudy stellar womb get twisted by the womb's rotation."
However, there is no evidence that charged particles can generate the requested magnetic field in a gas cloud that is needed for the activity of new born star.
Hence, the only place for ultra high magnetic field is around the SMBH. I have already proved that issue.
So, the gas cloud must get closer to the SMBH inorder to be under the influence of the requested magnetic field.
There is an evidence of that:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2892301/Mystery-cloud-near-Milky-Way-s-black-hole-Unidentified-gas-drifted-nearby-massive-star.html
"In 2013, the G2 gas cloud made its closest approach to the black hole, a distance of 20 light hours - about five times the distance of our sun to Neptune."
At this distance, the influence of the SMBH' magnetic field can boost the Star forming activity at the nearby gas cloud.
However, "Most of the stars twinkling in the night sky aren't alone. They're pairs, triplets or other groups, and scientists haven't understood why."
https://www.seeker.com/why-most-stars-have-twins-discovery-news-1766498927.html
Therefore, several stars are formed at the gas cloud at same time. So, by the time that those new stars are getting out from the gas cloud, they orbit around a common center of mass or braycenter. Therefore, the gas in the cloud doesn't just collapsed to the center in order to form single star. In reality as the gas orbits around the center of the cloud, and under the influence of the magnetic field, it crystallized in many gas balls. Many of them will be merged and form the new born stars, while the other might orbit around those new born stars as planets and moons. Therefore, each gas cloud will form several sets of stars. Each star will carry integrated planets and moons while each planet or moon comes as a hot gas ball. So, all our solar system including our planet and moon had been created in a gas cloud near the SMBH from the same matter and at the same time.
Hence, our planet and moon had been born as a hot gas balls with the same matter that sets the Sun. Therefore, nearly all Sun-like Stars have planetary systems:
https://www.universetoday.com/99309/nearly-all-sun-like-stars-have-planetary-systems/
"The latest analysis of data from the Kepler planet-hunting spacecraft reveals that almost all stars have planets, and about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury".
In our Sun, there is about 75% of hydrogen while the solid Atoms/molecular are less than 2%.
Therefore, The Earth as a rocky planet includes less than 2% from the total matter in its first day. Hence, its real mass on day one was more than 50 times than its current mass. Even so, due to its relatively small size, our planet couldn't hold the light gas as hydrogen and helium that had been evaporated over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
"Hydrogen gas is very rare in the Earth's atmosphere (1 ppm by volume) because of its light weight, which enables it to escape from Earth's gravity more easily than heavier gases. However, hydrogen is the third most abundant element on the Earth's surface,[82] mostly in the form of chemical compounds such as hydrocarbons and water".
Same idea with any relatively small planet or moon in the solar system. Only the big gas planets as Jupiter or Saturn were big enough to hold some portion of the light gas under their gravity force.
On the first day, all the planets were much closer to the Sun. The moons were much closer to the planets and even the stars were closer to their braycenters.
At that early time the gravity force between Earth/Moon was much stronger than the Sun/Moon. Therefore, the moon had been forced to orbit around the Earth and not around the Sun. Please remember that today the gravity of the Sun/Moon is about twice stronger than the gravity of the Earth/Moon. However, due to hysteresis phenomena, the moon keeps its orbital cycle around the Earth.
In any case, star forming activity can only take place near giant source of magnetic field. As the SMBH is almost the only source for mighty magnetic field in the galaxy, than all/most of the new born stars system takes place in a gas clouds near the SMBH.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/03/2020 21:19:23
I have found one more article that confirms the existence of binary stars at each gas cloud around the SMBH
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10752710/six-mystery-objects-orbit-black-hole/
"The six objects are named G1 through to G6.
"These objects look like gas and behave like stars."
"The astronomers now think that each G object could be a pair of binary stars that revolved around each other."
This is a key element in our understanding of star movement/orbit in the galaxy.
So, all/most of the stars in our galaxy revolve around at least one other star.
Our Sun is also part of the same galaxy system.
If there are binary stars in all the gas cloud, our sun should also be part of a binary star.
We don't see it yet, but it could be there as some sort of a dark star or even a small black hole.
Our SMBH form many of new BH
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5578539/Tens-thousands-black-holes-lurking-heart-galaxy-claim-scientists.html
"There may be tens of thousands of black holes may lurking in the heart of our galaxy".
Therefore, one of that baby BH might have set a binary star system with our Sun when they both had been formed near the SMBH. Therefore, we can't see it. But it is there.
So, our Sun must orbit around a braycenter while that braycenter revolves around the galaxy.
Therefore, when we look at the movement of our sun we think that it is bobbling:
https://slate.com/technology/2013/03/vortex-motion-viral-video-showing-suns-motion-through-galaxy-is-wrong.html
"A far more correct (though exaggerrated vertically for clarity) depiction of the Sun’s motion around the Milky Way galaxy has it bobbing up and down every 64 million years due to the gravity of the galactic disk."
However, Newton has told us very clearly that gravity means constant orbit around some center of mass.
Therefore, there is no way that our sun is just bobbling due to the gravity of the galactic disc as stated:
"The gravity of the disk would make the Sun plunge down into it. Since stars are so far apart, the Sun would go right through the disk and out the bottom. But then the disk would be pulling it up, once again toward the disk. The Sun would slow, stop, and reverse course, plummeting into the disk once again. It gets about 200 or so light years from the midplane of the galactic disk every time its bobs; the disk is 1000 light years thick, though, so we always stay well inside it. But these oscillations would go on forever, the Sun moving up and down like a cork in the ocean."
This is a severe mistake.
Orbital motion is not like a cork in the ocean.
The Sun orbits around a braycenter. therefore we see it as a cork in the ocean as it revolves around the galaxy - up and down.
In the article it is stated that the sun goes 200 LY above an below the disc. However, the disc is 1000 LY thick. So there must be stars high above/below our location.
If that theory of bobbling was correct than the star at the top should bobble 1000Ly up and 1000Ly down.
This is fantasy. Each star orbit around its own braycenter. Therefore we should see them all moving up and down while they all orbit around their own braycenter..
Hence, as our Sun shares a braycener with other dark star (or even BH) it can bobble up and down while it revolves around the galaxy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/03/2020 21:43:04
Please look at the following image of S2 orbital motion.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fit-to-the-orbit-of-the-S2-star-fitted-data-and-relative-errors-are-in-blue-the-red_fig1_272845577
We clearly see that it doesn't fit exactly with the expected orbital motion.
It also bobble around that expected orbital line.
The answer for that is also Binary System.
S2 Must share a braycenter with other dark star of BH.
This shared braycenter must fit perfectly with the expected orbital motion.
Again - there is no bobble or almost fit.
Newton have told us that there must be a perfect fit in every orbital Motion
Post by: Kryptid on 27/03/2020 21:51:07
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/03/2020 22:59:07
Dave, please go back and edit your prior posts instead of double posting in the future. Thank you.As far as I can tell, he's not double posting; he's rambling.
The fact that he was wrong in the first few lines isn't stopping him.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/03/2020 06:42:56
Dave, please go back and edit your prior posts instead of double posting in the future. Thank you.Dear Kryptid
In this thread I'm going to introduce the whole theory for our Universe.
I will explain why do we see that all far galaxies are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while the density of the Universe will stay the same forever.
No need for dark energy or dark matter. No need for inflation or space expansion. No need for bobbling theory or density wave.
Theory-D is the Only real theory for our Universe.
Sooner or later students will learn this theory in the University.
In the prior post I have just focused on spiral galaxy.
Please let me finish the whole introduction and then take a final conclusion about this theory.
However, I'm quite realistic.
The science community would probably reject this theory or any other theory that contradicts the BBT.
It seems to me that our scientists have one mission - to prove that the BBT is the only valid theory.
In order to do so they must also eliminate any other idea/theory that might negatively effect the BBT.
Why is it?
Why they all insist to ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT?
Why they insist to ignore the time before the BBT???
Why they can't give a real answer for the source of energy that was needed for the BBT?
How could they believe in bobbling orbital motion although it is a direct contradiction with Newton law?
How could they belive that star could drift inwards to the center of mass and increase its orbital velocity, while Newton have told us clear and loud that this is impossible mission?
Why they refuse to understand that ONLY Newton law must be used to explain the orbital motions at each segment in spiral galaxy?
Do they know why at the ring of the galaxy (3KPC) the thickness of the disc/arm is 3000 Ly while at the far end of the disc/arm (12-15KPC) the thickness is less than 400LY?
How could they use the cosmological constant in Einstein formula (and still call it Einstein formula) while he had stated clearly that this constant is the biggest mistake of his life?
You speak on the name of thermodynamics laws. So, why you don't answer how the BBT fulfill that law without real source of energy?
Do you estimate that an Atom could be created without electromagnetic power?
Where is the source for the magnetic power at the BBT theory?
I do understand that if we wish to hook the BBT to some divine power, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.
So, could it be that our scientists are ready to fight for the BBT and reject any other idea/theory as it hooks between their own divine believe to science?
Could it be that our scientists don't deal with the time before the BBT as the divine power gives the requested energy or magnetic power for that activity?
Therefore, could it be that the whole idea of the BBT is to show how the whole universe had been evolved from a divine power?
However, God is located in our hart. Why do we need to hook science with divine power?
Don't you agree that we can fully believe in God and still accept Darwin theory?
However, we all know that Darwin had been forced to reject his ideas..
So, could it be that even today our scientists reject any other idea/theory as it contradicts with their believe?
After many years scientists have understood that Darwin theory is correct.
So, how long do we have to wait for our scientists in order to accept the idea that the BBT is incorrect and we should open our mind to other theory as Theory D?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2020 10:44:30
It's time he was banned.As far as I can tell, he's not double posting; he's rambling.Well, pretty much every bit of this has been pushed in his prior topic, and all the responses have been completely ignored, so there seems to be no point in making any. Yes, he's just going to continue repeating this tripe over and over, in multiple threads no less.
The fact that he was wrong in the first few lines isn't stopping him.
Mind you, perhaps we should let him carry on just for comedy value.
The science community would probably reject this theory or any other theory that contradicts the BBT.Yes, we will- because we accept things that are supported by evidence.
But I predict that Dave isn't even going to address the fact that he was wrong in the first few lines.
Dave doesn't understand the importance of evidence.
Don't be like Dave.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/03/2020 16:21:15
Dave doesn't understand the importance of evidence.Yes I do
Evrey idea that I offer is based on real evidence/observation
Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:
1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.
2. Galaxy is growing from internally - Baby Boom galaxy
"The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
However it is stated: "The discovery also challenges the accepted model for galaxy formation, which has most galaxies slowly bulking up by absorbing pieces of other galaxies, rather than growing internally."
Based on this observation our scientists see that the galaxy is growing from internally.
Hence this observation contradicts the BBT. So, why this observation had been neglected?
3. Dark Matter - So far we have no direct observation for dark matter. The dark matter might give some brief concept for the spiral disc. However it doesn't answer why the spiral has several segments as central bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arms, outside the galaxy and why at each segment the orbital motion is so different. How can we explain all of that different observation with just single idea of dark matter? Please also be aware that for each galaxy there might be different formula for dark matter. Actually, the gravity force is relative to 1/R^2, while the dark matter is relative to R^3. So, the dark matter formula is quite complicated as it should linearize the R^2 based on R^3. How can we accept this idea??
4. Dark energy - We also don't see any dark energy. The whole idea is to explain why further galaxies are moving away from us at ultra high velocity. Is it real? Theory D can easily explain that observation without any need for Dark energy.
5. Accretion disc - our scientists clearly see that the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards. This is a real observation at any spiral galaxy that we see. However, after long search they have found galaxy at a distance of one billion LY from us. In that galaxy they have observed a gas ball in the size of Earth that is moving directly to the direction of the SMBH. So, they want us to believe that suddenly that gas cloud had been created due to internal collision between the rings in the accretion disc. However, due to the ultra high pressure in that ring, there is no way to set that kind of gas cloud. In any case they also know that Nothing can bypass the accretion disc (above or below) as it moves to the SMBH. I have proved this idea.
6. The aria near the SMBH is full with gas cloud, new born stars systems and even with ten thousands of new born BH. The central bulge is pack with Billions of new born stars and dust. This is all based on real observation. If the SMBH wish to eat that matter, why it refuses to eat them all? What is the benefit for the SMBH to eat a star, than break its atoms to particles in a 10^9c plasma, just to eject 99% of that mater outwards from the accretion disc? However, it must first convert back the broken particles/atoms to real molecular, boost them in twin molecular jet stream at 0.8 c and then start again the whole new star forming activity. Is it real? Did we try to understand what the energy benefit is for the SMBH from this cycle?
7. Central bulge - We clearly see at this aria that each star (for example S stars) is orbiting at different direction and different plane around the SMBH. So, as they fall in, it is expected that each one of them should set a different plane of accretion disc. Therefore, it is expected to see several accretion discs around the SMBH - each accretion disc for each falling star. However, we clearly see that this is not the case with the any accretion disc around a SMBH. Therefore, this is one more observation that the SMBH does not eat any star or even any atom from outside.
8. Newton - Newton has proved by his cannon ball experimental that there is no way for an orbital object to increase its orbital velocity as it falls down. Therefore, stars couldn't migrate inwards from outside the galaxy to the center. However, our scientists do believe that stars/objects can migrate inwards and increase their orbital velocity due to the conversion of potential energy to orbital kinetic energy. This idea totally contradicts Newton law.
9. New born stars in a gas cloud - Our scientists clearly say that high magnetic field is needed to start the activity in a gas cloud for a new born stars. The SMBH is the only available source for ultra high Magnetic field in the galaxy. We clearly see the new born star forming activity in the gas cloud G1-G6 near the SMBH. However, we almost have no real evidence for high magnetic field or star forming activity outside the Bulge and especially not outside the galaxy. However, for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside. Actually, there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies. So, how those billions over billions of stars outside the galaxy had been formed without real source of magnetic field? The answer is very simple - all of those stars had been ejected from the galaxy. So, the galaxy does not take any star from outside just to be eaten. Over time it actually ejects outwards all the stars that had been formed in the galaxy.
10. Binary star system - Braycenter
Our scientists claim that based on clear observation all the new born stars in the gas clouds (as G1 to G6) share a braycenter with at least one more star. However, when it comes to our sun, suddenly they have forgotten this observation. Now, they have no clue about a braycenter. Therefore, they start to believe in bobbling.
11. Bobbling - There is no way for an orbital object to move in a bobbling movement up and down several times in one orbital cycle. This is a clear contradiction with Newton and kepler law. So how could our scientists believe in such science fiction?
Why they don't accept their own observation???
Do you need more points?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2020 16:31:51
Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:That's not a contradiction.
1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.
the simple answer is " we don't know". It's not as if we were there at the time taking measurements.
But I predict that Dave isn't even going to address the fact that he was wrong in the first few lines.I was right.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2020 16:35:09
However it is stated: "The discovery also challenges the accepted model for galaxy formation, which has most galaxies slowly bulking up by absorbing pieces of other galaxies, rather than growing internally."How did you miss this bit?
Based on this observation our scientists see that the galaxy is growing from internally.
Hence this observation contradicts the BBT. So, why this observation had been neglected?
"which has most galaxies ..."
Post by: Kryptid on 28/03/2020 18:54:43
Yes I do
LOL, you don't even understand how conservation of energy works.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/03/2020 07:02:02
With regards to the BBT:
Well, if you don't know abut the source of energy for the BBT, than how can you support this theory?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:21:15That's not a contradiction.
Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:
1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.
the simple answer is " we don't know". It's not as if we were there at the time taking measurements.
Well, for one, the BBT does not attempt to explain from where everything came. Secondly, it seems the total energy of the universe is zero, so there's no need for a source of zero energy.If the BBT does not attempt to explain from where everything came, than again - this theory has no valid base.
What do you mean by: "there's no need for a source of zero energy"
The BBT must get energy to start the whole process.
It was clearly stated that the initial state of the BBT was "very high-density and high-temperature"
So, they clearly start with energy and that source of energy is clearly not zero
Please read my following message about the BBT energy scource:
7. Energy source for the BBT
Why our scientists don't try to explain the scenario before the BBT?
Could it be that there was something before the Big bang or just nothing?
I agree to accept the idea that something could be created out of nothing.
Darwin has told us that one living cell could be the source for the whole variety of life that we see. Therefore, we all can agree that first living cell could be created out of nothing. However, how can we agree that everything could be created at the same moment from nothing or even from something if our universe is infinite?
The BBT doesn't explain what is the source of energy for all the matter in the Universe.
It is just stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high-density and high-temperature"
So, what is the source for that high density and high temperature?
What is the meaning of high density?
Density of what? Is it some sort of a matter? If so, than why do we need the Big bang if the matter is already there? How any sort of density can be converted into real matter by bang without any energy transformation as electromagnetic field?
Please be aware - Not even one word about energy in the BBT…
How could it be that our scientists speak on the name of science and the first law of thermodynamics (when it comes to different theory), while they don't have a basic clue for the source of energy (or high density) for the BBT activity?
So, how can you all claim that the BBT is valid while you have no clue about its source of energy?
I'm electronic design engineer.
When I start any design, the first question is - what is the source of energy.
Somehow, our scientists have totally skipped that key question.
If those scientists will design an aircraft without any idea for the source of its energy, than how it could move even one centimeter?
They speak about the energy of "everything", while they can't even explain the source of energy of "something".
Our scientists want us to believe that the whole energy for the whole universe - (even for infinite universe) was there before the bang, while they have no clue about the source for that energy.
Actually, they can't even explain the source of energy that is requested for one Atom.
Let's read again the following answer:
"the total energy of the universe is zero, so there's no need for a source of zero energy"
How can they generate even one atom if the total energy of the universe is zero?
With regards to Atom creation:
Let's assume that you need to design a process to generate one atom
Do you have any idea for the requested energy?
Einstein have told us:
E = M c^2
So, the energy of mass M should be higher than this mass by c^2
Now try to calculate the energy that is requested for just one star as our sun.
Do you see any possibility to get that energy while the total energy of the universe is zero?
In any case, even if we have some energy, there must be a process to convert energy to particle/atom/molecular
That process could work only at accelerator as we see at CERN:
https://home.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex
"The accelerator complex at CERN is a succession of machines that accelerate particles to increasingly higher energies."
So if we wish to generate any sort of particle and than convert it to all list of atoms and molecular as water, we must use real accelerator with embedded magnetic power.
The BBT doesn't offer any magnetic accelerator.
However, we have unlimited numbers of those kind of accelerators in our Universe.
We call them accretion disc, but they are the biggest magnetic accelerators in the Universe.
We see there particles orbiting at almost a speed of light in a hot plasma of 10^9 c.
We also see that real Atoms and molecular are ejected outwards from that magnetic accelerator.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation about that creation process.
It also gives a clear explanation about the energy source that is requested for that activity:
I have clearly explained the energy source for the mass creation process at the accretion disc:
Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.
So now.
Let's assume that you have no idea about BBT or theory D.
Which kind of theory gives answer for the source of new energy?
Which kind of theory gives answer for how that new energy can be transformed into real particles/atoms/molecular?
Is it BBT or Theory D
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/03/2020 11:46:48
The basic idea in the BBT of the first creation of matter could be perfectly OK.
Somehow or someway the Universe had to start with some matter.
All is needed is just one BH.
So, the BBT must explain the first creation of something - not everything.
That something is just a single/first BH that has the ability to create new particles in its Photon sphere as was explained:
15. Photon Sphere
I'm really excited. I have just found an article which confirms the creation zone of new particles between the accretion ring and the event horizon.
This aria is called – Photon sphere (I was not aware about that name).
Please look at the following image:
https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/black-hole.cfm
It is stated:
"Just outside the event horizon of the BH, gravity is strong enough to bend their paths so that we see a bright ring surrounding a roughly circular dark shadow."
However, they think that this radiation is coming from the outwards accretion disc or actually from the plasma in that accretion disc:
"Although the black hole itself is dark, photons are emitted from nearby hot plasma in jets or an accretion disc."
"As charged particles go around, they accelerate, causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation."
This is a severe mistake.
As Newton has told us very clear in his cannon ball experimental, matter that moves to lower radius, can't increase the orbital velocity and can't get higher orbital acceleration.
Therefore, the only way to generate this radiation between the event horizon to the innermost accretion ring, is by new created particle pairs at the photon sphere.
Due to the location of that zone it is also clear that the orbital velocity should be much higher than just 0.3c (as it is in the accretion disc). I would assume that the orbital velocity at the Photon sphere is almost as high as the speed of light.
The innermost accretion ring is called – innermost stable orbit. That shows that our scientists see the difference between the stable orbit at the innermost excretion ring to the aria of the new pair production that is called Photon sphere.
They also claim that the plasma in the accretion disc is made of broken Atoms - free electrons and nuclei.
"Black holes trap nearby gases in their gravitational pull and whip them around in an orbit at immense speeds. The gas material gets very hot and breaks apart into its constituent positive nuclei and negative electrons, not bound together as an atom. This hot mass of free electrons and nuclei is called a plasma."
But they don't understand that the process works the other way. The excretion disc doesn't break down the atoms to positive nuclei and negative electrons in that plasma. If that was the case, than as most of that matter is ejected outwards, we should see mainly broken atoms that are ejected from the excretion disc. However, we mainly see real Atoms and molecular that are ejected from the excretion disc. That ejected matter is actually ejected upwards/downwards as Twin molecular jet stream.
Therefore, the excretion disc is actually forming new Atoms and molecular from the new created particles that are ejected to that aria from the Photon sphere.
Once that first BH is created, than Theory D can take place and easily explain the evolvement of the whole infinite Universe from this single BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2020 13:13:36
Well, if you don't know abut the source of energy for the BBT, than how can you support this theory?OK, setting aside the fact that no energy is required- per Halc's comment earlier, the answer to your question is "just fine thanks. There's no contradiction there".
Your comment is like saying, "How can you believe in honey if you can't explain how bees fly?"
Do you not see how that's absurd?
There is evidence of the existence of honey, regardless of any level of ignorance on how it comes to exist.
There is evidence of the big bang, even if we don't know the details of how it exists.
And that's why this thread has posts like this.
Yes I do
LOL, you don't even understand how conservation of energy works.
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/03/2020 14:41:54
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2020 18:23:38
Once that first BH is created
And how did that happen?
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/03/2020 14:50:17
Once that first BH is createdAnd how did that happen?
Dear Kryptid
As usual, you ask me a clever question - and you force me to make some more homework.
If one day I will get a reward for my discovery, I insist that you and Halc will share it with me.
You both have really helped me with this work.
In order to find a solution for your question, I have looked at the web and found the following article:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
"The black hole is 13 billion light years from Earth, meaning that it formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang when stars were only just beginning to take shape".
"Professor Simcoe said: "If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses – it's unrealistic"
"The discovery put the Big Bang theory in doubt"
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
.
This clear observation proves that the BBT is just incorrect.
In the same token, based on Theory D it was expected to see many BHs at any distance from us.
Therefore, this observation confirms theory D.
If we had the correct technology, we should see BHs at 20 BLY away, 1,000 BLY and even one Million BYL away.
Actually, this one is relatively quite young BH comparing to the real age of our Universe
Please be aware that this observation was made in 2017. So, our scientists already know about this problem for the last three years.
However, as was accepted, our science community still supports the BBT. They will do whatever is needed to hold the BBT forever and ever and under any kind of contradiction.
In any case, with regards to your question -
It is clear that somehow energy is needed to create the first BH.
Therefore, the basic idea from the BBT of creating something due to a big bang could be perfectly OK.
However, the BBT is based on assumptions over assumptions. You take one and the whole theory is none relevant.
For example – The BBT is based on the assumption that our universe is homogeneous, and isotropic. This is incorrect. Not in small scale and not in large scale. The assumption that the energy of the BBT was uniformly distributed everywhere and the net gravitational potential was therefore near zero, and there was no one point to which everything could collapse is just incorrect.
Hence, if there was a big bang or any sort of bang, everything should collapse to one point at the same moment of the bang. That would create the first BH. It might be a tinny BH, however it must spin. The spinning velocity would generate the requested magnetic field that is needed to create new particles pair at the photon sphere. Once the photon sphere stars to generate new partials pair, the magnetic accelerator (the accretion disc) starts its mission to form the first New Hydrogen atom in whole Universe.
So, there is a big difference between the BBT and theory D.
Based on the BBT, the Big Bang should create everything. However, based on theory D just something as a BH should be good enough..
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/04/2020 05:12:57
Based 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 generations
Therefore, 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2020 11:42:22
Based on theoryWho cares?
Theory D is based on a false start.
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.Non sequitur.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/04/2020 15:06:43
Why don't you read my answer:QuoteThe Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.Non sequitur.
There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.Didn't you see my reply at:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78586.0
Let's focus on the Black body radiation in the CMB:
Black Body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"An ideal body is now defined, called a blackbody. A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.[10]"
In the article it is also stated that:
"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
1.This insulated enclosure could be a box at any size. As long as it is insulated enclosure box, we should get the Black body radiation inside that box. Let's assume that we can set a box of isolated enclosure in the open space at the size of 1BLY. The Milky way will be located inside that box. It is quite clear that the internal radiation will be a black body radiation.
2. Let's set 1000 1BLY boxes next to each with a similar density. So, we get a bar of 1000BLY. As the radiation at each 1BLY box is black body, than if we eliminate the walls between the boxes in that bar, we still should get a black body radiation inside that 1000 BLY Bar. So, as long as the 1000Bly bar is isolated enclosure than we must get the black body radiation..
3. Now, let's add to this bar an infinite no of 1BLY boxes, and eliminate the walls between the boxes, Therefore, we should get an infinite bar (with the same density at any location in the bar). In this case it is clear that as long the infinite bar is still isolated enclosure we should get a black body radiation in that bar.
4. However, as it goes to the infinity, it is clear that even if we open the walls of the last end box (which is located at the infinity), it shouldn't have any negative impact on the internal black body radiation in that bar (assuming that we measure the radiation far enough from that last open walls). So, we have got an infinite bar with open ended walls which still has an internal black body radiation. Let's call it B- bar.
5. If we now set an infinite number of B- bar, one above the other. We should get an infinite rectangle. We already know that this infinite rectangle has an open ended (Left & right) and it has a black body radiation.
In the same token, if we open the Up/down edges (at the infinity) we still should have a black body radiation in that infinite rectangle. Let's call it C-rectangle
6. If we set an infinite number of C- rectangle, one after the other. We should get an infinite cube (It goes to the infinity in all directions.) This cube goes to the infinity and has an open ended at all directions.
So, technically, there is no end for this cube, it is an infinite cube and therefore it should hold an internal black body radiation.
Conclusions:
The black body radiation in our Universe proves that it MUST be infinite.
Any location at this universe is located at the infinity from any edge. Therefore, any location in that universe could be considered as a center. In the same token we should get a black body radiation at any point.
Therefore, Kryptid is fully correct in his following message:As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center".
However, that could be correct ONLY if our universe is infinite.
Lets try to understand how black body radiation works at the Sun.
It is quite clear that as long as the radiation is at the surface of the Sun, than it has a black body radiation.
However, as it is emitted from the Sun, the black body radiation is lost.
Therefore, the surface of the Sun acts as isolated enclosure.
In the same token, also in atmosphere of our planet we find a black body radiation.
So, that Atmosphere is another example of black body radiation in isolated enclosure .
Therefore, our universe could hold black body radiation ONLY in the following conditions:
1. If it is Finite – It must be in isolated enclosure. Therefore, there must be walls around the Universe. What is the chance for that?
2. If it is Infinite – As I have proved, infinite Universe acts as a finite Universe in isolated enclosure.
Conclusion:
The ONLY possibility to see a black body radiation in the CMB is when the Universe is INFINITE
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/04/2020 13:28:48
Photosphere is a perfect example for black body radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
As you can see in that image, "The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."
In other words:
The photons of light would be nearly in thermal equilibrium and carry a Black body radiation ONLY if most of them won't escape into the open space.
Hence, only if most of the photons in that photosphere will be forced to bounce back from the outer edge of the photosphere, they could carry a black body radiation.
Therefore, The photosphere (Blow aria),represents a finite aria with edges/boundaries that prevent from the photons from escaping to the open space. As long as most of the photons stay at that aria they will be nearly in thermal equilibrium and they would carry a Black body radiation.
We could cover this photosphere with one more layer of photosphere. In this case, the photons of light in each layer will also be nearly thermal equilibrium. Therefore, in both layers we should see a black body radiation.
If we eliminate the border between them, we still should get the black body radiation in the combined aria.
Theoretically, we could add infinite no of photospheres and get a black body radiation inside that aria.
However, infinite no of photospheres means - infinite sphere. So, if we have infinite photosphere we should get a black body radiation without any need form the photons to bounce back from the boundary of this infinite photosphere.
This shows that as our universe carries a black body radiation in its CMB, than it must be INFINITE.
Now, let's read the explanation about the black body radiation in the BBT:
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background"
"The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space. It is an important source of data on the early universe because it is the oldest electromagnetic radiation in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark."
So, the main idea in the BBT is that The CMB is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe.
However, we already know that in order for that early stage to generate a black body radiation, most of the photons in that stage, should be reflected inwards by some sort of boundary.
We already know that without an outwards boundary, there is no reflection. No reflection means no photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium and no black-body radiation.
Therefore, if we consider that early stage as some sort of photosphere that prevents from most of the photons to escape outwards, that early stage will carry a black body radiation.
However, we know that after this early stage, the inflation and expansion took place.
In those two activities, the photons had no boundary any more.
Hence, there is no boundary that could force most of the photons to bounce back.
Without it, the photons of light would not be in thermal equilibrium and therefore, they wouldn't carry a Black body radiation any more.
Therefore, the assumption that we see today the CMB that carry a black body radiation due to activity that took place 13.8 BY ago (Just after the early stage, while all of the photons escape outwards) and the Universe is finite without boundary - is a simple fantasy..
Conclusion:
An activity that took place 13.8 BY ago couldn't have any impact on the current measured CMB.
This CMB is the electromagnetic radiation of our current Universe.
As it carries a black body radiation it proves that our Universe must be infinite.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/04/2020 17:44:56
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2020 21:22:37
Why don't you read my answer:Because you put put in the wrong place (i.e. not in this thread).
But now that I have read it, it doesn't actually answer the point.
I can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame.
That does not mean that a candle flame is infinitely large.
You miss the point of the "small hole in a container" as BBR source, the walls of the container have to do the emitting and the radiation has to be observed from outside.
So this
The Milky way will be located inside that box. It is quite clear that the internal radiation will be a black body radiation.
is just wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/04/2020 06:10:00
Non-sequiturs piled on top of non-sequiturs...
Dear Kryptid
You have stated clearly in the past that our scientists don't know the real size of our Universe.
So, how can you support any sort of theory about the Universe without that key information?
If you had been requested to develop an engine to some airplane, won't you first ask about the size of that airplane?
Do you think that an engine for a toy airplane would fit to Boeing 747 and vice versa?
How our scientists wish to explain how the Universe works, while they don't have any clue about its real size?
The BBT had been developed about 70 years ago, while our scientists were positively sure that our universe is finite and compact. Therefore, the BBT had started from the idea of "singularity".
Based on this theory the age of our Universe is 13.8 BLY.
However, now we have clear observation that the Big Bang theory is wrong.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
"The black hole is 13 billion light years from Earth, meaning that it formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang when stars were only just beginning to take shape".
"Professor Simcoe said: "If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses – it's unrealistic"
"The discovery put the Big Bang theory in doubt"
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
You have stated that the BBT fully meets all the Observations.
However, this observation proves that the BBT is wrong.
So, why don't you wish to accept this clear observation that knocks down the BBT?
Don't you agree that in order to offer any sort of theory for our Universe we first must understand the real size of the Universe. How can we estimate the age of the Universe without knowing its size?
Therefore, the first stage in theory D was to estimate the size of the Universe.
As the conclusion was that the Universe is infinite than its age also must be infinite.
Don't you agree that the BBT is none relevant for the size/age of infinite Universe?
If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?
If you still don't know its size, than how do you know for sure that the Universe is not infinite?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/04/2020 09:50:32
You miss the point of the "small hole in a container" as BBR source, the walls of the container have to do the emitting and the radiation has to be observed from outside.Sorry
You miss the whole point of Black body radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. "
So, in order to get the black body radiation, the light entering the hole is reflected at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge.
Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation without negatively impact the creation of the black body spectrum due to the internal reflections:
Please see one more example for: "An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body_realization.svg
Again, in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.
Is it clear to you by now?
I can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame.Sure, you can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame, but only if around that flame there is some sort of photosphere. I assume that this photosphere is created by the air around the flame due to the high temp of the flame. If we could eliminate this photosphere, we won't get any BBR in that flame.
We can consider also the sun as some sort of a huge candle light.
So, as long as around the Sun or around the candle flame there is a photosphere, we should get the BBR.
However, it is important to highlight that the photosphere around the candle flame or around the sun is used as some sort of internal surfaces that reflects internally the light that is generated by those objects.
That does not mean that a candle flame is infinitely large.Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.
So, if we see a radiation with a BBR it proves that there must be some sort of photosphere around the light source.
Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:
1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it
2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.
As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2020 12:20:07
Is it clear to you by now?It was clear to me when I Learned it 30 years or more ago.
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2020 12:21:27
Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.No
What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/04/2020 19:18:50
It was clear to me when I Learned it 30 years or more ago.Perfect.
So you do understand that:
in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.And you also understand that:
Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiationTherefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBR
So how can you claim that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container/cavity?:
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?It is stated clearly that: "a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation".
With regards to the different effective temperature:
Actually, if we monitor the surface temperature of the sun we should find temporarily arias/spots with different temperatures.
That doesn't negatively impact the BBR of the Sun.
If the idea of photosphere was also clear to you, why do you ask the following question:
Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.No
What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?
We do not discuss about "red hot iron bar" so what do you want to show in this question?
Could it be that the idea of "photosphere" is still not fully clear to you?
The "photosphere" was clearly explained by Wiki:
Photosphere is a perfect example for black body radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
"The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."
Post by: Kryptid on 04/04/2020 21:06:34
If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?
You don't seem to know what a non-sequitur is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
Trying to get me to tell you about the real size of the Universe in order to counter your claims is an example of shifting the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof It is not up to others to falsify your idea. It is up to you to support it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 00:34:04
We do not discuss about "red hot iron bar" so what do you want to show in this question?Yes we did.
It's just that you didn't understand the thing we were discussing.
"Red hot" means something that's emitting BBR in the range where it's just about hot enough to start producing visible radiation.
So. like a candle flame, a red hot iron mar (or a toaster, if you like) is a source of black boy radiation.
So, once again....
What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 00:35:51
Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBRWhich part of "no" do you not understand?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 00:39:42
So how can you claim that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container/cavity?:Because i'm inside a part of the galaxy (as it happens, my cellar) and for reasons that will never be explained, I have stuck a bowl of blue glass over the light fitting.
According to the local radiation in here it's well over 30,000 Kelvin.
But I'm still here.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 00:41:05
The "photosphere" was clearly explained by Wiki:Yes, it is well enough explained.
Now, please explain to me why you think my toaster has one.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/04/2020 04:32:02
"Red hot" means something that's emitting BBR in the range where it's just about hot enough to start producing visible radiation.
So. like a candle flame, a red hot iron mar (or a toaster, if you like) is a source of black boy radiation.
Thanks for this information.
I assume that you mean "red hot iron bar" instead of "red hot iron mar"
So, you actually offer an option to generate a BBR without the need for "Photosphere".
That is perfectly OK
So, we can add the following option for our Universe to carry a a black body radiation in its CMB:
3. If the Universe acts as a "red hot iron bar" than it could carry a BBR in the CMB without the need for photosphere.
Hence, we can agree that the Universe could be finite without any need to set a Photosphere around it (if the Universe was a "red hot iron bar").
However, do you consider that this option is real?
If our scientists had considered that this option is valid, than they wouldn't offer the BBT as the only source for the BBR in the CMB.
Therefore, it is clear that even our scientists do not consider that our Universe acts as a "red hot iron bar".
Therefore, we still have only the following two options:
Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:Any other idea?
1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it
2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.
As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 13:23:12
Any other idea?Yes.
That's why I posted it; three times.
Not sure why you ignored it- presumably because it's not compatible with what you want to believe.
Here it is again.
Because i'm inside a part of the galaxy (as it happens, my cellar) and for reasons that will never be explained, I have stuck a bowl of blue glass over the light fitting.
According to the local radiation in here it's well over 30,000 Kelvin.
But I'm still here.
Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBRWhich part of "no" do you not understand?
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/04/2020 16:26:01
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?
I have already sent you my reply about those issues.
In any case:
1. How can you claim that the BBR doesn't apply if you are inside the container?
I have deeply explained that issue and backup it with articles:
You miss the whole point of Black body radiation.It seems that you didn't understand that explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. "
So, in order to get the black body radiation, the light entering the hole is reflected at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge.
Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation without negatively impact the creation of the black body spectrum due to the internal reflections:
Please see one more example for: "An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body_realization.svg
Again, in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.
Is it clear to you by now?
So, let me use the following example:
We set a tinny hole in a cavity.
With that tiny hole we actually monitor the internal radiation in the cavity.
So you claim that if we monitor the internal radiation through that tinny hole, we should find that the radiation carry BBR, while if we monitor it from inside we shouldn't get the BBR.
Is it real? How could you believe in such unrealistic idea?
On which kind of article do you base that wrong understanding?
2. How can you also claim that if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures we shouldn't get the BBR?
In wiki it is stated that a cavity could be consider as an oven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
Black-body radiation becomes a visible glow of light if the temperature of the object is high enough.[21] The Draper point is the temperature at which all solids glow a dim red, about 798 K.[22] At 1000 K, a small opening in the wall of a large uniformly heated opaque-walled cavity (such as an oven)
It is stated that:
"No matter how the oven is constructed, or of what material, as long as it is built so that almost all light entering is absorbed by its walls, it will contain a good approximation to black-body radiation."
So, inside that oven there could be one heating element or unlimited no of elements. As long as it is built so that almost all light entering is absorbed by its walls, it will contain a good approximation to black-body radiation.
I have also offered the sun as a perfect example for black body radiation while at its surface you can find different arias at different temperatures at any given moment:
With regards to the different effective temperature:So how can you claim that if there are several light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures it won't work?
Actually, if we monitor the surface temperature of the sun we should find temporarily arias/spots with different temperatures.
That doesn't negatively impact the BBR of the Sun.
Again, on which kind of article do you base that wrong understanding?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/04/2020 06:13:19
I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.
If we go to the infinity at our left side, we will stay at the left.
Same issue with any other direction that we will chose to go.
Our Universe isn't singularity and there is no expansion in space.
It is fixed in short range as it is fixed in a very long rang.
Only the matter/Galaxies are expanding in all directions.
I have already explained why the farther galaxies are residing at a faster speed.
The Atlantic Ocean had been created due to a 2cm drifts per year.
So, a very vast ocean could be created if we give it enough time.
In the same token an infinite Universe could be created from a single BH after long enough time.
Therefore, in order to generate an infinite Universe an infinite time is needed.
Hence, our Universe must be infinite in its age.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/04/2020 06:59:26
I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.
Nope. It's still a non-sequitur.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/04/2020 19:10:15
Dear KryptidI hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.Nope. It's still a non-sequitur.
Sorry, it seems that I have missed your following reply.
If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?
You don't seem to know what a non-sequitur is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
Trying to get me to tell you about the real size of the Universe in order to counter your claims is an example of shifting the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof It is not up to others to falsify your idea. It is up to you to support it.
As Usual - thanks for your great answer.
You claim that my understanding is incorrect due to burden of proof.
So, let's try to understand what is the meaning of burden of proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."
Let's focus on: "the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position" and see the diffrence in our positions with regards to CMB - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation:
What is Radiation?
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/what_is.html
Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space at the speed of light. This energy has an electric field and a magnetic field associated with it, and has wave-like properties. You could also call radiation “electromagnetic waves”.
It is also stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
"The word radiation arises from the phenomenon of waves radiating (i.e., traveling outward in all directions) from a source. This aspect leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are applicable to all types of radiation. Because such radiation expands as it passes through space, and as its energy is conserved (in vacuum), the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source. Like any ideal law, the inverse-square law approximates a measured radiation intensity to the extent that the source approximates a geometric point."
Therefore, if there is a constant source of radiation at a given point source, than "the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
Therefore, we can easily calculate the amplitude of the radiation at any given distance from the point of source.
Based on those explanations it is quite clear that the radiation that we monitor at our location is a combined radiation that we get from any radiation source point around us.
Therefore, the CMB represents the combined radiation that we get from our current Universe. That radiation is generated by almost infinite number of radiation source points in the whole Universe. It could be a nearby star or very far end galaxy.
So simple and clear.
This explanation fully meets the basic element in Burden_of_proof "to provide sufficient warrant for their position".
However, our scientists think differently,
Somehow they are positively sure that the CMB is a remnant from an early stage of the universe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation".
Why is it?
Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?
I hope that you agree that any bang, even if we call it a Big bang isn't a constant source of radiation.
So, this big bang might generate an ultra high temporary radiation that travels at the speed of light.
However, once it cross the space, it should gone forever especially as it took place 13.8 BY ago.
So, how could it be that our scientists believe that the radiation from the Big bang could stay with us after so long time?
Sorry, this big mistake of our scientists fully meets your explanation about Formal_fallacy.
If our scientists can't show how the CMB radiation could stay in space for almost 13.8 BY, than they violet the basic element in Burden_of_proof "to provide sufficient warrant for their position
So, the CMB radiation should be the radiation of our current Universe, while any other assumption is a clear Formal_fallacy even if it is made by our scientists.
The other issue is Black body radiation in the CMB.
Why our scientists are so sure that a bang could generate a black body radiation?
In all the explanations about black body radiation, I have never ever found even one word about bang that could generate that kind of radiation.
As an example, we get a radiation from a supernova. Do we see there a black body signature in the radiation spectrum?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
In that article they deeply discuss about the radiation of the supernova. However, you won't find even one word about black body radiation.
So, if our scientists claim that the black body is due to the Big bang, than they must "provide sufficient warrant for their position" that a bang can generate a black body radiation.
Without it, the assumption that the CMB is a remnant from an early stage of the universe is just one more Formal_fallacy from our scientists.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/04/2020 19:23:03
I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.No.
If I was inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a nice even temperature, and the lights off, I would see black body radiation in whichever direction I looked corresponding to the temperature of the walls- probably about 280K.
That does not mean that the cellar is infinite.
In the same way, when we look out and see the CMB, it does not mean the universe is infinite.
You are still presenting an unjustified assertion.
The burden of proof is on you.
It would also be on you if you were claiming, without valid grounds, that the Universe is finite.
The point is simple.
You make the claim; you have to prove it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 04:49:58
Thanks for your excellent example:
If I was inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a nice even temperature, and the lights off, I would see black body radiation in whichever direction I looked corresponding to the temperature of the walls- probably about 280K.
So, you actually offer that wine cellar as an example for a container/cavity.
You show that a black body radiation could be generated at that wine cellar while you are inside.
Therefore, you have just proved that we can stay at the container and get a black body radiation.
Hence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrong:
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container.....?So, yes, you can be inside the container and still get a BBR.
With regards to the following:
That does not mean that the cellar is infinite.Yes, I fully agree with you.
In the same way, when we look out and see the CMB, it does not mean the universe is infinite.
The black body radiation does not mean that the wine cellar is infinite.
It just shows that it has walls all around it.
So, the wine cellar is a perfect example for a black body radiation in finite object that is surrounded by walls (or photosphere).
Therefore, I have stated that due to the BBR there are two options for our Universe:
So, if we see a radiation with a BBR it proves that there must be some sort of photosphere around the light source.
Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:
1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it
2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.
As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB
Therefore, as we can't prove that our universe acts as a wine cellar (that fully covered with walls or photosphere), than finite Universe is clearly can't generate a black body radiation.
In the same way, when we look out and see the CMB, it does not mean the universe is infinite.I hope that by now you finely agree that once we take out the walls from the wine cellar (while you stay at the center of that object), you won't get the BBR any more.
You are still presenting an unjustified assertion.
The burden of proof is on you.
Therefore, a finite Universe without walls all around it can't meet the BBR signature that we see in the CMB.
Hence, the only way to get a BBR from any kind of sphere without walls is when this sphere is infinite.
I have already deeply explained that issue.
Therefore, as our Universe generate BBR in its CMB (and as it has no walls or photosphere all around it), than it must be a infinite.
This conclusion fully meets the burden of proof as it fully provides sufficient warrant for this position.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 07:42:02
If I was inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a nice even temperature, and the lights off, I would see black body radiation in whichever direction I looked corresponding to the temperature of the walls- probably about 280K.I would like to focus on the CMB temperature.
We see exactly the same temperature from all directions.
So, if our Universe was finite, than we had to be located exactly at the center of this finite Universe.
What is the chance for that?
Is it 1/10^100 or shall we agree on just zero?
Hence, a finite universe would never generate exactly the same CMB temp in all directions (if we aren't located exactly at the center).
Therefore, this is key evidence that our Universe must be infinite.
At infinite sphere there is no meaning for a center point.
Any point at the infinity universe could be considered as its center.
The point is simple.Agree
You make the claim; you have to prove it.
I have just proved that our universe must be infinity in order to supply exactly the same radiation from any direction at any location.
However, now it is the obligation of our scientists to answer the following questions:
1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe
2. 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...
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 09:52:09
We see exactly the same temperature from all directions.
So, if our Universe was finite, than we had to be located exactly at the center of this finite Universe.
What is the chance for that?
No, once again, imagine the wine cellar scenario.
It wouldn't matter if I was nearer to (say) the South wall, the radiation would look exactly the same, not matter which way I faced unless I looked at myself.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 09:57:13
Hence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrong:No
Once again, you missed the most important bit.
inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a nice even temperature, and the lights off,
Obviously, if I'm in the cellar and I look at myself, I see a different temperature.
But the effect I have on the cellar as a whole, is small.
Someone peeping in through a small hole in the wall would see my spectrum, or the wall's or some combination, depending where they looked.
That's why you can't say that a small hole in a container gives BBR unless you have no light source in the container.
And that's why you are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 10:00:37
Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point?Because there isn't a "point".
The big bang is everywhere.
You really need to try to understand the theory before you try to undermine it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 10:02:11
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.Because the universe is big.
Even at the speed of light it takes the radiation billions of years to cross it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 10:03:32
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...It's time I got back to work but, trust me, all those questions have perfectly sensible answers.
It's just that you haven't done your homework and found out what they are.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 12:32:54
First let me thank you for all your efforts in responding my messages.
I'm looking forwards for your homework/answers.
It's time I got back to work but, trust me, all those questions have perfectly sensible answers.
It's just that you haven't done your homework and found out what they are.
However, would you kindly backup your understanding by real physics law?
For example, you claim that the radiation would look exactly the same at any location at the finite Universe::
QuoteWe see exactly the same temperature from all directions.No, once again, imagine the wine cellar scenario.
So, if our Universe was finite, than we had to be located exactly at the center of this finite Universe.
What is the chance for that?
It wouldn't matter if I was nearer to (say) the South wall, the radiation would look exactly the same, not matter which way I faced unless I looked at myself.
QuoteHence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrongNo
Once again, you missed the most important bit.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:23:03
inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a nice even temperature, and the lights off,
Obviously, if I'm in the cellar and I look at myself, I see a different temperature.
But the effect I have on the cellar as a whole, is small.
Someone peeping in through a small hole in the wall would see my spectrum, or the wall's or some combination, depending where they looked.
That's why you can't say that a small hole in a container gives BBR unless you have no light source in the container.
And that's why you are wrong.
So you discuss on a cellar. As I have already explained a cellar has walls around it and therefore it acts as cavity.
It generates BBR and I even might agree with you that is could generate the same temp.
However, we discuss on a finite Universe without any walls around it while we are located at any location in that Universe (even almost at its edge)..
So, if for example we are located closer to the left side edge of a finite Universe (without walls), than the total radiation sources from the left side should be much lower that the right side.
Therefore, based on the inverse-square law, the combined radiation from the left side should be lower than the right side.
This is a simple outcome due to physics law. Therefore, the radiation temp at the left side should be much lower than the right side.
I have backup this explanation by article from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
"The word radiation arises from the phenomenon of waves radiating (i.e., traveling outward in all directions) from a source. This aspect leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are applicable to all types of radiation. Because such radiation expands as it passes through space, and as its energy is conserved (in vacuum), the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source. Like any ideal law, the inverse-square law approximates a measured radiation intensity to the extent that the source approximates a geometric point."
Therefore, if there is a constant source of radiation at a given point source, than "the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
Therefore, we can easily calculate the amplitude of the radiation at any given distance from the point of source.
Based on those explanations it is quite clear that the radiation that we monitor at our location is a combined radiation that we get from any radiation source point around us.
Therefore, the CMB represents the combined radiation that we get from our current Universe. That radiation is generated by almost infinite number of radiation source points in the whole Universe. It could be a nearby star or very far end galaxy.
So, it is clearly stated that: "the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source"
Hence, if you still think differently, than please backup your understanding by real article & physics law.
Just to say "No" because I know better than you, wouldn't bring us to the real solution.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 12:40:44
"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source"And again, you miss the point.
"from a point source"
A wall is not a point source.
Please go and learn some physics.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 12:47:19
And again, you miss the point.Any matter, any star and any galaxy acts as point of source in our universe.
"from a point source"
A wall is not a point source.
Please go and learn some physics.
Therefore, if at the left side there are much less points of source with regards to the right side, than by definition the combined radiation temp at the left side should be lower than the right side.
Why is it so difficult?
Remember - we discuss on a Universe without walls.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 14:36:41
Remember - we discuss on a Universe without walls.OK, let's start with the case where there are well defined walls like my cellar.
When you get that right, we can move on.
OK, imagine I look at the wall through a tube- like, for example, the cardboard one from the middle of a toilet roll.
And imagine that the wall is a perfect crystal with lots of atoms in a regular array.
Now imagine counting how many atoms I can see through that tube.
Well, it depends on the aspect ratio of the tube. That defines the angle over which I can see.
Lets say the tube is 9cm long and 3cm in diameter.
And let's also assume, that I'm 90cm from one wall (South) , and 900 cm from the other (North)
OK facing South, I can see a patch of wall 30 cm in diameter and facing North I can see a patch that's 300 cm in diameter.
One circle is 100 times the area of the other.
So I can see 100 times as many atoms when I look North as wann I look South.
But (and this is why it matters that a wall is different from a point) each atom is 10 times further away and, because of the inverse square law that applies to point sources (like atoms, but not like walls) I only receive 100 times less light from each atom.
So I see 100 times more atoms, each giving me 1/100 times as much light.
The two effects cancel exactly.
So the light I see does not depend on the distance from the wall.
Now, if you think about it, you will see that the same thing happens regardless of the distances to the walls, or the length or diameter of the tube.
So the tube might as well not be there.
You will still get exactly the same degree of illumination, regardless of your distance from the wall.
The inverse square law applies to every atom in the wall, but the number of atoms you can see increases as you move away so the two effects exactly cancel.
So, next time I suggest that you go and learn some physics, perhaps you should do so.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 16:53:13
OK, let's start with the case where there are well defined walls like my cellar.You still focus on a cellar which has walls all around it, while I discuss on a sphere/universe without walls.
When you get that right, we can move on.
Do you claim that our universe should behave like a cellar?
If so, than you actually claim that there must be walls around our Universe.
If there are no walls around our universe, than your example about a cellar is none applicable for our universe.
How can we understand each other while I discuss about a universe without walls while you insist to discuss on a cellar that represents a finite Universe with walls around it?
So, would you kindly take a decision on which kind of Universe we discuss on?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 19:19:52
You still focus on a cellar which has walls all around it,Have you forgotten who introduced the idea of a closed container here?
"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
I'm trying to set you straight on the easy stuff, before we get to the universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 19:55:17
As I have stated, if the Universe was finite with walls around it (as a cellar) than it should be perfectly OK.QuoteYou still focus on a cellar which has walls all around it,Have you forgotten who introduced the idea of a closed container here?Quote"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"I'm trying to set you straight on the easy stuff, before we get to the universe.
However, if I understand it correctly, our scientists do not consider that there are walls around the Universe.
So, a Cellar can't represent our Universe.
Therefore, when we discuss on our universe there are only two options:
1. a finite Universe without any walls around it
2. Infinite Universe
Do you agree with that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 20:09:14
So, would you kindly take a decision on which kind of Universe we discuss on?If we are talking about the universe we are in, neither of us gets to decide what type it is.
It is what it is.
You made this claim about it.
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.
So far, you have failed to justify that claim.
There is no causal link between the existence of the CMB and the universe being infinite in size.
There's also a well known observation which tells us that the universe is almost certainly not infinite in both age and extent. You have probably made the observation yourself
It gets dark at night.
Now, let's see if you are going to
- rant at me for introducing some stupid irrelevant idea, or
- actually do some study.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 20:30:55
If we are talking about the universe we are in, neither of us gets to decide what type it is.Well, you can't decide for me.
It is what it is.
However, you are more than welcome to assume that the Universe is what it is and abandon the discussion about its type and shape.
I have no intention to join you in your decision.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 20:50:23
Do you know what "neither" means?If we are talking about the universe we are in, neither of us gets to decide what type it is.Well, you can't decide for me.
It is what it is.
However, you are more than welcome to assume that the Universe is what it is and abandon the discussion about its type and shape.
I have no intention to join you in your decision.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/04/2020 06:41:45
Do you know what "neither" means?The meaning of "neither" by Google translate:
"not the one nor the other of two people or things; not either."
"used to introduce a further negative statement."
That exactly shows your negative approach.
You only focus on "further negative statement"
Therefore, you are totally stuck at the first line of this theory - The size of the Universe.
Who cares?Our scientists have no clue about the size of the Universe.
Theory D is based on a false start.
Therefore you also don't care about it.
You are quite satisfy from the current status that they "Don't Know". As they don't know than nobody should know!!!
Any attempt to "know" or evaluate the size of the Universe (Finite or Infinite) Must be a "false start" and a severe violation.
In the same token, it is a severe violation to consider that there is an error with the BBT.
This theory had been offered at the same time that the first transistor had been developed.
However, while our electronic engineer community worked on new developments and delivered breakthrough improvements almost on a daily basis, our science community worked very hard to keep that old theory alive.
They protect the BBT as it was the Holy Crown of our universe. No one should touch it. If you dare, you are out of the community.
Just think how miserable could be our life if the engineering community were still stuck with the Holy Crown of the first transistor.
Our science community don't care that there are clear observations that fully contradicts the BBT.
From their point of view, the BBT must stay with us forever and ever and under any sort of contradiction.
Therefore, any person that is member in the science community must fight for the BBT.
Hence, we all must accept the BBT as is and we all must fully agree that the Universe "is what it is" although our scientists have no clue about "what it is"
It is what it is.Therefore, nobody in this universe should even try to think "what it really is".
From your point of view our universe should be compared to a cellar, while you have no ability to evaluate its size from there.
You don't even try to read my theory and claim that "Theory D is based on a false start" as your main mission is to reject any attempt against the BBT.
Therefore, you have no willing even to think about a finite sphere without walls.
I fully respect your believe in the BBT.
Therefore, I can't help as long as you stuck at that cellar and your main mission is to prove that whatever I say must be incorrect.
If one day you will know the size of the Universe, than please do not hesitate and share it with us.
Thanks again for all your efforts
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 09:00:35
Therefore, you are totally stuck at the first line of this theory - The size of the Universe.No.
Your idea is stuck at the first line because, as I and others have pointed out, it does not make sense.
Do you now understand what "If we are talking about the universe we are in, neither of us gets to decide what type it is." means.
Do you understand why "
I have no intention to join you in your decision.makes no sense, because it isn't my decision.
I didn't build the Universe.
I didn't decide to give it a wall or not.
Nor did you so it's silly for you to say
So, would you kindly take a decision on which kind of Universe we discuss on?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 09:02:23
Our scientists have no clue about the size of the Universe.That's wrong, but irrelevant.
You made a false assertion in your "theory".
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/04/2020 09:38:21
If they know the size, than why don't they share it with us?Our scientists have no clue about the size of the Universe.That's wrong, but irrelevant.
You made a false assertion in your "theory".Yes, I fully understand your point of view.
It is a severe "false assertion" to offer a "theory" that contradicts the BBT.
If we clearly observe that the BBT is incorrect we should consider it as a "false assertion"
Just one example for you:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-spaceOur scientists are so "very puzzling" as they stuck with the BBT for so long time.
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
"The black hole is 13 billion light years from Earth, meaning that it formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang when stars were only just beginning to take shape".
"Professor Simcoe said: "If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses – it's unrealistic"
"The discovery put the Big Bang theory in doubt"
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
There is no room for puzzling theory in electronic engineering.
If the theory doesn't meet the observations - you must set it in the garbage.
If you can find only one real observation that contradicts Theory D, than we should set it deeply in the garbage.
However, it is forbidden to disqualify a theory by another none relevant theory.
Only real observations!
No.
Your idea is stuck at the first line because, as I and others have pointed out, it does not make sense.
"Make sense" isn't a real observation. It is actually a "sense" that might be based on other none relevant theory.
So, please try to find only one real observation that contradicts theory –D and I will be the first one to set it in the garbage.
Based on “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered by Martin Luther King: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed"
I also have a dream that one day our science community will rise up and live out the true meaning of all observations in our Universe!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 12:21:59
If they know the size, than why don't they share it with us?While the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown, it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
Yes, I fully understand your point of view.No you do not.
It's not an issue of whether or not it contradicts BBT.
It's a straightforward error in logic.
You assert that something follows from something else.
There is, in fact, no such deductive relation.
If the theory doesn't meet the observations - you must set it in the garbage.OK, it gets dark at night.
That kills your idea.
you must set it in the garbage
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/04/2020 16:19:34
While the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown, it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.Thanks
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
In the article it is stated:
"While the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown,[3] it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter. In various multiverse hypotheses, a universe is one of many causally disconnected[11] constituent parts of a larger multiverse, which itself comprises all of space and time and its contents;[12] as a consequence, ‘the universe’ and ‘the multiverse’ are synonymous in such theories."
A. Entire Universe: "the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown".
So, our scientists have no clue about the size/shape of the entire universe.
That is very clear
B. Observable universe - "it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter".
So, they have good estimation about the observable universe. However, we wish to know the size of the whole Universe not just the observable universe.
C. Multiverse - In various multiverse hypotheses, a universe is one of many causally disconnected[11] constituent parts of a larger multiverse, which itself comprises all of space and time and its contents;[12] as a consequence, ‘the universe’ and ‘the multiverse’ are synonymous in such theories.
So, the Multiverse comprises all of space and time and its contents.
Few questions:
1. Based on this explanation, do you agree that the entire Universe should be bigger than the observable Universe while we have no clue about its size?
2. What is the real difference between: Universe, Entire Universe, Multiverse, space (or entire space)? Which one is bigger than the other one? Could it be that there is something bigger that all of them?
3. Which universe had been evolved from the Big bang? Is it the observable Universe, or the entire Universe?
4. Could it be that in a Multiverse, there are several/many "entire Universes"?
5. If there are several entire Universes could it be that each one of them had been evolved from a different Big bang?
6. How do we know the age of each entire Universe or the multiverse?
7. Is there something bigger from all of them together? For example: whole entire Multiverse?
8. They are not using the word "infinite". So how do they call the infinite space/Universe?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 16:31:50
However, we wish to know the size of the whole Universe not just the observable universe.Why?
It will not matter to us.
I think you keep missing the point.
We don't know how big the universe is, but we know it is not infinite in time and space.
This is confirmed every night, when it goes dark.
You seem determined to ignore this fact.
So I'm just going to keep on pointing it out for you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/04/2020 20:42:21
QuoteHowever, we wish to know the size of the whole Universe not just the observable universe.Why?
It will not matter to us.
Is it real?
Why do you think that the information about the real size of the Universe is not matter to us?
Don't you see that a theory from infinite Universe is quite different than for a quite compact universe of only 93 BLY?
Actually, if you want to stay with the BBT than the 93 BLY is perfectly Ok.
However, if the entire Universe is really big, much bigger than the observable Universe, than how can you fit the BBT to that size?
So, what is our mission?
To keep the BBT or to get real information about our Universe?
I think you keep missing the point.What do you mean by that?
We don't know how big the universe is, but we know it is not infinite in time and space.
This is confirmed every night, when it goes dark.
How do you know for sure that it is not 930 BLY, 93,000 BLY, close to infinite or just infinite?
Let me use the following example:
Let's assume that we are located at LA and you ask the way to NY.
I Look at the road and I can only see the first 10Km. So If I tell you that the observable road is 10 Km, would it help you to get to your destination?
If you insist, I might tell you: It will not matter to you. First cross that 10Km and then you can ask.
So sorry.
We are not looking for an explanation about the observable Universe.
We MUST first find the real size of our entire Universe.
If it is not infinite than our scientists should tell us exactly its size.
Just to say that it is more than 93 BLY is really none relevant.
The size is more important than any current theory.
Let's assume that we could only see our solar system or only the Milky Way galaxy
So, you do understand that a theory for only one solar system in the entire Universe could be different than a theory for only one galaxy in that Universe.
In the same token a theory for a universe of 93,000 BLY might be different than a theory for 93 BLY.
If Our scientists have no clue about the exact size/shape of the entire Universe or Multiverse than their theory is really none relevant.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/04/2020 20:50:05
We MUST first find the real size of our entire Universe.
Why?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 22:06:53
What do you mean by that?I mean that the universe either has a special boundary (A "wall" if you like) or it has a temporal boundary (A beginning).
I mean you are wrong when you say
Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.You are wrong.
Science knows this.
Science has known it for a very long time.
If you had studied science you would know it too.
It gets dark at night.
Post by: Lance Canham on 09/04/2020 23:05:07
space HAs been compressed around these remaining Black holes. This space compressed around them IS the space That got stretched Between them. Now they are free to behave different then they have. The Universe Has switched Paradigm.
This Happened before. we called it Big Bang.
the Whole Idea screams that there is stuff there we can not see but infer through its gravitational effect. We see that.
It evolves so how could light travel from infinity to here. That behaviour at this scale was not possible till what you call the BB happened. An infinite universe( the only working model I can make in my behaves as our universe does) It fills in the gaps that the text book can not see past. The text book only looks at this iteration of the cycle. we can only interact with other iterations through gravity for Obvious reasons in Physics. We can seethe one above and detect the one below.
Without the text book I can see past BB I can see expansion and inflation and dark matter simply By pinching an infinite balloon instead of Blowing up a finite one. When I can no longer Grab any more with those pinches. I take Bigger pinches and again and again. This happened in the past. The pinches were extremely smaller and there an extremely large amounts of pinches in a small area we will call this inflation
I believe this understanding that an infinite Universe could Exist without break that law was One of the milestones That helped convince me. I already had a good feeling. Read my thread.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 04:09:27
If you need to go from LA to NY don't you need to know the distance before you start your first step?We MUST first find the real size of our entire Universe.Why?
Based on this Knowledge you can decide how to get there: By walk, car, Bus, train or fly.
In the same token, before our scientists can offer a solution for our universe they Must understand its size.
Unless, you can show that the same BBT that works for 93 BLY observable Universe can also perfectly works for any size of Universe (even if it is Infinity) without any change in the theory
How can you claim something that is totally incorrect?QuoteUniverse is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.You are wrong.
Science knows this.
Science has known it for a very long time.
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
Multiverse - "the Multiverse comprises all of space and time and its contents", "In various multiverse hypotheses, a universe is one of many causally disconnected[11] constituent parts of a larger multiverse,".
In this case it is clear that they don't have a clue about the real size and shape of the Multiverse.
I'm not asking just an explanation for the observation or even entire Universe.
If there is something bigger than that as "Multiverse" - Than this is the one to focus on.
However, based on real observation, I have proved that the BBT is totally wrong explanation even the observational Universe, so how it can give any real solution for the Multiverse or almost infinite universe?
If they don't know the real size of the entire multiverse than they surly can't speak about its age.
Don't you agree that to set an infinite or almost infinite multiverse/Universe, you need more time than just 13.8 BLY?
I mean that the universe either has a special boundary (A "wall" if you like) or it has a temporal boundary (A beginning).
Can you please explain about those special boundary or wall around our entire Universe/Multiverse?
How it looks like? Is it made out of some sort of matter? How and why the BBT could set this boundary? What there is outside that boundary? If the density of our current Universe is D1. Does it mean that at the boundary the density is still D1 while just after the boundary the density drops to zero?
Let's assume that I will stay exactly at that boundary or close to the boundary. Could it be that in one direction I will get CMB at 2.7K while on the other direction it will drop almost to Zero? What about the BBR?
Therefore, could it be that as I move closer to the Boarder, the CMB will not be the same at all directions?
How far we need to be from that boarder in order to get exactly the same CMB from all directions?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/04/2020 06:09:49
If you need to go from LA to NY don't you need to know the distance before you start your first step?
This is a poor analogy. Even if we could travel at the speed of light, we could never get outside of the observable Universe. It doesn't matter what is or is not outside of our observable Universe because we can't go there nor can anything out there affect us.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 09:14:27
This is a poor analogy. Even if we could travel at the speed of light, we could never get outside of the observable Universe. It doesn't matter what is or is not outside of our observable Universe because we can't go there nor can anything out there affect us.
Do you mean that the BBT should give us an explanation ONLY for the observable universe?
You claim that "This is a poor analogy"
So, let me offer another analogy:
Let's assume that we were living in the deep ocean. That is whole our observable Universe.
Now, we have to find a theory how the whole observable ocean had been evolved/created.
So, do you think that as we don't see anything outside our ocean, we can totally ignore the whole universe outside that ocean?
If so, than why do we try to see to distances that are located further and further away from us?
Why don't we set a simple theory for just our galaxy or even for our solar system and close the story?
Why do we try to explain the ultra high velocity of the further galaxies?
Why don't we just ignore all of them and claim that we don't have to worry about something that we don't see.
So, this is how our science really works?
You claim: " It doesn't matter what is or is not outside of our observable"
Therefore, you clearly claim that our scientists are only taking care about the observable Universe.
In this case, they shouldn't claim anything about the activity outside that limited space of 93 BLY.
Hence, do you agree to keep the BBT for that limited observable space, while you can't say any negative message against Theory D as it highlights the activity outside that space up to the infinity?
So, Theory D and BBT could live together forever and ever.
If you still don't agree for that, than you have to confirm one of the following options:
1. There is nothing outside the observable Universe. What we see is what we have. In other words, our total, whole, entire Universe/multiverse (up to the infinity) must be totally empty outside the observable Universe.
2. There is something outside the observable.
However, as you don't see, you don't have any clue about it - as size, shape, density, age...
So how do you know for sure that it isn't very big or even infinite? If you claim that it shouldn't be much bigger than the observable, than please prove it.
3. You agree that it could be very big as Multiverse or even infinite. In this case, do you agree that the current BBT (as is) doesn't fit to this size of Universe? If you try to offer new adaptation to the BBT in order to meet the infinite Universe option, than you have to agree that current BBT (as is) is surly incorrect.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 12:38:47
If you need to go from LA to NY don't you need to know the distance before you start your first step?Ask Columbus.
How can you claim something that is totally incorrect?I should ask you the same question.
In the article it was stated clearly:Yes, but, by implication, they know it has a size- which is the same as saying it is not infinite.
Entiere Universe - "the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown", So they don't know its size
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.
Can you please explain about those special boundary or wall around our entire Universe/Multiverse?No. I can't tell you anything about it, apart from the fact that it exists (and that this was known over 100 years before the BBT was introduced).
However, based on real observation, I have proved that the BBT is totally wrong explanationNo.
You have made a false assertion.
Because, in fact, it goes dark at night.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 14:39:49
But that's not the point; WIKI can be wrong, so what it says isn't really important.Is it real?
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
Next time, please try to read the whole article before you offer it to support your ideas
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.
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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 17:12:02
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 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.
Is it clear?Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.
You say "
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.but you don't understand what it means.
There is a reason for that 13 Bly figure.
It's the age of the universe times the speed of light,.
But you keep trying to insist on a universe that has been here "forever"- you say it has infinite age.
herefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
Well, if it was infinitely old then there would have been an infinite time for the light to get to us (not a mere 13Ga).
So, along the line you talked about, there would be a visible star.
You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about a calculation based on the age of the universe being 13 billion years, and then say it shows that the universe is infinitely old.
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.That's interesting.
They are moving away from us at huge speed. They have been doing so for an infinite time.
They should all have gone away.
The sky should be devoid of stars.
But it isn't.
Seriously, clever people worked this out a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
The universe can not have the properties you ascribed to it here
our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/04/2020 17:25:23
Do 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. We can never know the full size of the Universe because we can never observe it. If you can't observe it, then you can't test hypotheses about it. If you can't test hypotheses, then you can't do science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 21:49:17
Yes we have much better choice.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.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation almost for any aspect in our entire Universe.
For example – I was not aware about that problem that was just highlighted by Bored chemist:
Seriously, clever people worked this out a long time ago."In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840), also known as the "dark night sky paradox","
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.
We can never know the full size of the Universe because we can never observe it.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
2. 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.
3. Red shift - Z=1100 this is the MOST important observation and quite challenging for me.
The red shift value for the farthest galaxy is less than 9. However, when it comes to the CMB we get a fix red shift at z=1100. That shows that somehow we get the Cosmic Microwave Background also from galaxies that are so far away that we don't see their light any more. So, somehow the CMB radiation from very far away galaxies can cross the distance and get to us, while their light had totally lost long ago. This is one challenge as the speed of the radiation is actually the same speed as light. Therefore, there must be some advantage in that movement of the CMB radiation in space as it can cross longer distances than the light itself.
The other issue is the fixed value of Z=1100. As the CMB is getting from wide spectrum of galaxies at any distance from us, I would expect to see that wide spectrum also in the CMB red shift. So, the CMB should include wide range of red shift. Let's assume from almost zero to more than just 1100.
I try to imagine infinite Universe and I can't understand why it stuck exactly at z = 1100. Why don't we see in the red shift spectrum higher and lower z values? Therefore, I have stated that this fixed factor represents a challenge for me.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/04/2020 22:02:27
Yes we have much better choice.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation almost for any aspect in our entire Universe.
No, what I mean is that we have no choice but to base our models on the observable Universe. It's the only part of the Universe that we can make observations of to test hypotheses.
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
Bored Chemist already explained why this is wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 23:39:06
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".
Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. ILie 1
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
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/04/2020 08:09:41
QuoteYes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:Bored Chemist already explained why this is wrong.
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
CMB
Let 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.html
When 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.
Conclusion
The 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
Post by: duffyd on 11/04/2020 10:03:22
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. ILie 1Black 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
Are you the truth police? You accuse quite a few people of lying. Troll
Post by: duffyd on 11/04/2020 10:09:25
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 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.Is 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 14:39:49
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.
You say "
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
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.
but you don't understand what it means.
You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2020 12:16:21
Again, I can't tell if that's just incompetent editing or an attempt at dishonesty.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 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.Is 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 14:39:49
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.
You say "
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
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.
but you don't understand what it means.
You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?
Post by: Colin2B on 11/04/2020 14:15:31
You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?It is certainly his business to point out when people are wrong about science. He and @alancalverd are very experienced in science and well able to identify false thinking.
If you have specific evidence to reject what he is saying, it would be best to raise it here.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/04/2020 18:58:57
In the following article it is stated that the red shift is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
The cosmic microwave background has a redshift of z = 1089, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang and a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years."
So, when we look at the CMB we do understand that they cross a distance of more than 46 BLY.
Please be aware that the real meaning of comoving distance is the real distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances
"Comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe, giving a distance that does not change in time due to the expansion of space (though this may change due to other, local factors, such as the motion of a galaxy within a cluster)"
So, Our scientists do not discuss on a proper distance due to the expanation:
"Proper distance roughly corresponds to where a distant object would be at a specific moment of cosmological time, which can change over time due to the expansion of the universe. "
They clearly claim that the Red Shift shows that the real distance (comoving distance) that the CMB radiation had crossed is more than 46 BLY.
In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year. That should be clear for all of us.
There is no way to fit that time in only 13.4 or even 13.8 BY from the BBT
However, if we think about infinite universe, there is high common sense in that number.
Now we know that most of the CMB radiation is coming to us from the Sphere of about 46 BLY.
As the radiation amplitude is reduced by square root, than the radiation from very far away galaxies (For examples: located at 500 BLY away or 50,000 BLY) is quite neglected upon the arrival to our location.
So, now we know that although we are living in infinite Universe, the real sphere around us that contributes the maximal radiation energy in the CMB is about 46 BLY.
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. However, I still expect to see some wider spectrum in the red shift.
This key verification gives further justification for theory D and actually knocks out the BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2020 20:01:12
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.You may be confident, but you are still wrong.
The maths is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox#The_paradox
Post by: Kryptid on 11/04/2020 23:41:18
In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year. That should be clear for all of us.
And now you've demonstrated that you don't know how the metric expansion of space works.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/04/2020 03:57:50
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. ILie 1Black 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
Shame on you
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.
No one lies. 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.
In any case, before we criticize anyone, it is our obligation to understand his ideas
You didn't even try to read this tread as you were focusing only on the negative aspects..
You actually didn't even backup your negative replies with any article (except of one)..
In this one, you have contradicted your own negative feedback and we have already discussed about it.
With regards to the "dark night sky paradox" by Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers
"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."
That paradox doesn't contradict Theory D. I have already explained it to you.
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?
However, You could also easily understand it if you took the time to read the following explanation about the expansion:
ExpansionUnfortunately, as expected, you didn't take the effort to read my explanations.
Based 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 generations
Therefore, 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.
You only focus in highlighting your "negative wisdom".
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.
By doing so, you might set your ego in the sky and feel how "clever" you are.
Shame on you!
You have to apologize to any person in this forum that you have insulted.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/04/2020 05:12:24
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.
Either something is true or it isn't. The Big Bang theory, for example, can't be true for one person and false for another.
Unfortunately, as expected, you didn't take the effort to read my explanations.
He reads them, he just knows enough about science to say that they are wrong.
I have never got from you any positive reply as your main task is focusing on the Negative.
That is, at least in part, because your "theory" is filled with errors.
Your approach aim to knock down any person that wishes to get better understanding in science.
People who are looking to get a better understanding of science ask questions. And I don't mean the rhetorical questions of the kind you pose. You make declarations instead. Declarations based on poor logic. Bored Chemist is pointing that out.
How many actual scientists have you spoken to that agree with "Theory D" anyway?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:35:48
We can agree or disagree with any point of view.Or we can do what you do and repeatedly make statements that have been shown to be false.
That's called lying.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:36:47
If someone considers that the other one is liar, than he is the real liar.Can you show me the dictionary that uses that definition?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:45:10
"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."So, it conflicts with a universe like the one you describe here
... a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:51:04
You didn't even try to read this tread as you were focusing only on the negative aspects..I have bad news for you. That's how science works.
The ideas that get accepted are the ones that can not be shown to be false.
So the basis of science is trying to make things fail.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:55:32
That paradox doesn't contradict Theory D. I have already explained it to you.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 14:39:49
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,
I referred to that "line" in my rebuttal.
Well, if it was infinitely old then there would have been an infinite time for the light to get to us (not a mere 13Ga).
So, along the line you talked about, there would be a visible star.
And yet you are saying I didn't read it.
How could I refer to something I hadn't read?
Please take more care to avoid saying silly things like that.
Post by: Lance Canham on 12/04/2020 13:53:13
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:57:50"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."So, it conflicts with a universe like the one you describe hereQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42 ... a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
In his theory there may be issue with an infinite Universe(size) and (age), Looking at gravity I found a way an infinite universe works That implies it went and goes through Paradigm changes, During this change Physics as you now takes hold. So even in an infinite Universe of infinite size The physics still took hold when the text book says so its IS VERY possible to have an infinite universe of size and age and not break Olbers Paradox, JUST saying. Look up and ask if its infinite what will gravity do. Again after answering that look down because your answer looking up says it happened before.
If its infinite it can't expand but it can look like it does. How could this be. The universe is not A FINITE BALLOON BLOWING UP. Its an infinite one pinched all over - Move it ahead. The pinches compress stretching the balloon between them till they can no longer do this then all the pinches start to pool into lager pinches and again and again. And it happened before.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 05:19:48
In the article it is clearly stated that the 46BLY is based ONLY on comoving distance.
It isn't due to Proper distance that is connected to the expansion of the universe.
Please read it again:
In the following article it is stated that the red shift is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
The cosmic microwave background has a redshift of z = 1089, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang and a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years."
So, when we look at the CMB we do understand that they cross a distance of more than 46 BLY.
Please be aware that the real meaning of comoving distance is the real distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances
"Comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe, giving a distance that does not change in time due to the expansion of space (though this may change due to other, local factors, such as the motion of a galaxy within a cluster)"
So, Our scientists do not discuss on a proper distance due to the expansion:
"Proper distance roughly corresponds to where a distant object would be at a specific moment of cosmological time, which can change over time due to the expansion of the universe. "
They clearly claim that the Red Shift shows that the real distance (comoving distance) that the CMB radiation had crossed is more than 46 BLY.
In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year.
So, if you agree with that explanation by wiki, than the 46 BLY is only based on real distance without any impact due to the expantion.
If you see any error in that article, than please let me know.
In any case, if you accept it, than it proves my statement that the BBT is just incorrect.
Somehow you have ignored other articles that have stated clearly that the BBT is wrong..
After deep investigation about the BBT theory and after reading thousands of scientific articles during more than 10 years I have concluded that there must be a fatal error in the BBT.
You and Halc have never accepted my point of view.
However you always gave me important answers and lead me to the correct solutions with deep Mutual respect.
None of you have never ever claimed that I lie.
You might not know it, but theory D is clearly based on the excellent support that you both gave me.
Either something is true or it isn't. The Big Bang theory, for example, can't be true for one person and false for another.The BBT isn't a science law.
You might believe in this hypothetical theory or you might reject it.
If it was true, our scientists won't be so "Puzzled" after any unexpected discovery. In real theory – there is no room for "unexpected" observation. Any new observation must perfectly fit the theory. That’s how it works in Engineering. There are no "Puzzled" Engineer. Every theory in electronic engineering should be 100% correct or should be set in the garbage.
If you wish I can summarize some of the key point that knocks down the BBT.
This hypothetical theory is just incorrect.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 17:12:02Sorry
Well, if it was infinitely old then there would have been an infinite time for the light to get to us (not a mere 13Ga).
So, along the line you talked about, there would be a visible star.
This is totally incorrect.
Everything in our Universe is relative (you can ask Einstein about it...)
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
In order to understand what will happen with a light that is traveling today to our direction, let call it Light A.
So, as any other light in the Universe, Light A had started today its movement to our direction at the speed of light.
However, that speed of light is relevant to its point of source, which is galaxy A.
Hence, as galaxy A is drifting away from us at 10 Times the speed of light, while Light A is moving in our direction at the speed of light, than the real outcome is that Light A is drifting away from us at 9 times the speed of light.
Therefore, light A won't get to us never and ever.
This simple explanation proves that your assumption is incorrect.
In any case, I would never ever call it Lie. At the maximum I might say that your knowledge in science is very poor
However, based on your definition:
Or we can do what you do and repeatedly make statements that have been shown to be false.Based on your definition, your false statement shows that you are Lying.
That's called lying.
So, why do you lie?.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2020 05:35:14
In real theory – there is no room for "unexpected" observation. Any new observation must perfectly fit the theory.
And you don't understand how theories work either. Theories are not facts.
But there is something that a good theory does: it makes testable predictions. So if I understand Theory D correctly, the proposal is that galaxies grow larger over time because the black hole in the center is continually creating matter and energy, right? If this is true, then younger galaxies should be smaller than older galaxies. So you have created an opportunity to test your model. Due to the limited speed of light, we are looking further back in time the further out we look into the Universe. So the further away galaxies are, the smaller they should look. Do you think that is correct?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 06:20:07
And so I see you still don't understand how universal expansion works...So, would you kindly explain what is the real meaning of "red shift that is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years"?
So if I understand Theory D correctly, the proposal is that galaxies grow larger over time because the black hole in the center is continually creating matter and energy, right?Yes
That is correct
If this is true, then younger galaxies should be smaller than older galaxies.That is also correct. We have an excellent example for that: Andromeda her baby spiral galaxy - Tr.
In the same token, all dwarf galaxies around the MW are direct products/babies of the Milky Way.
So, they are all sisters. All of them are drifting outwards. Each one might drift at different direction..
Over time, each one of them might be converted to a mighty spiral galaxy.
There is good chance that all the nearby clusters of galaxies are also a direct product of the Milky way.
As long as they are drifting away at a relatively low velocity, than they could be considered as her direct children or grandchildren.
The Milky way should be proud with all of them.
So the further away galaxies are, the smaller they should look.That could also be correct, as long as the total age of the Universe was finite.
However, the age of our universe is infinite.
I would assume that only the age of the Milky Way should be much more than one trillion years. (From the time that our SMBH had been born as a tinny BH at the center of its super massive Mather galaxy.)
This time represents just one brief moment in the life of our whole Universe.
Actually, based on my calculation, you need about 1370 generations in order to set a speed of light between the first mother to the last generation galaxy (assuming that all are drifting in the same direction)
So, if we could know the time that it takes to a new born tinny BH to set its own galaxy and its own new born tinny BHs, we could estimate how long it could take only to set our observable aria from one tinny BH.
But again, even that long time is just one more moment in the total life of our Universe.
Take it to the infinity and you get our wonderful infinite Universe.
So simple and easy.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2020 07:19:35
So, would you kindly explain what is the real meaning of "red shift that is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years"?
46 billion light-years is the distance today. The distance was much smaller in the past.
However, the age of our universe is infinite.
Fine, we can say for the sake of argument that the Universe is infinite in age. However, the age of any single galaxy should be limited, shouldn't it? And if that's true, galaxies should be smaller the younger they are.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 08:00:31
46 billion light-years is the distance today. The distance was much smaller in the past.Well, If I understand correctly the BBT, there are two factors for setting the distance:
1. comoving distance - real distance
2. Proper distance - distance due to the expansion
In that article in wiki they claim the 46 is only the comoving distance, - real distance.
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?
However, 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 SMBHs
Somehow 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.
galaxies should be smaller the younger they are.That should be correct.
However, I would focus on the size of the SMBH. The bigger it is the older it is..
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 12:32:04
Sorry
This is totally incorrect.
Everything in our Universe is relative (you can ask Einstein about it...)
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
In order to understand what will happen with a light that is traveling today to our direction, let call it Light A.
So, as any other light in the Universe, Light A had started today its movement to our direction at the speed of light.
However, that speed of light is relevant to its point of source, which is galaxy A.
Hence, as galaxy A is drifting away from us at 10 Times the speed of light, while Light A is moving in our direction at the speed of light, than the real outcome is that Light A is drifting away from us at 9 times the speed of light.
Therefore, light A won't get to us never and ever.
This simple explanation proves that your assumption is incorrect.
In any case, I would never ever call it Lie. At the maximum I might say that your knowledge in science is very poor
However, based on your definition:
Interesting, but it just shows that you failed to grasp my other point.
If the universe is expanding, and it always has been, why is there anything still near us?
I should be able to see no stars, or a star in every possible direction.
"Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light."
Who put it there? It has been moving away from us for an infinite time (according to you). Why is it still there?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 14:48:12
Interesting, but it just shows that you failed to grasp my other point.Our Universe isn't expanding!!!
If the universe is expanding, and it always has been, why is there anything still near us?
I should be able to see no stars, or a star in every possible direction.
Only the matter/galaxies in our infinite Universe are expanding.
I have already copy the explanation for you.
Now I copy it again for you.
Please let me know if you have any difficulty to read that explanation.
Expansion
Based 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 generations
Therefore, 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.
"Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light."Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.
Who put it there? It has been moving away from us for an infinite time (according to you). Why is it still there?
Let's assume that the Milky way is the first galaxy in the whole Universe.
So, after 1370 generation, the last generation will move away from us at the speed of light.
Hence, we can conclude that If Galaxy A is the 13,700 generation after the milky way, it should move 10 times the speed of light from us. However, it is important to highlight that we assume that all 13,700 galaxies generations should drift away from us exactly in the same direct line.
So galaxy A doesn't stay at a distance of 130 BLY away.
It is in a constant moving.
Therefore, if galaxy A is located today at a distance of 130,000,000,000 LY and in one year it is moving away by 10 LY, than next year it should be at a distance of 130,000,000,010 LY
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 15:11:44
Our Universe isn't expanding!!!https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/639349-multiple-exclamation-marks-he-went-on-shaking-his-head-are
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 15:21:27
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.OK, you said to let you know if I had problems reading that.
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. .
Well, yes, because it's nonsense.
"a new Born BH"
Born of what?
"arrived to our Infinite Universe."
From where?
"was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space."
How come?
"Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. "
Through what mechanism? Angular momentum doesn't create a magnetic field.
"Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field "
The field that wouldn't exist.
" to create new particle pairs"
Through what mechanism?
"at the Photon Sphere."
The what?
That's about 3 unanswered questions per line of your text.
Did you think it wouyld somehow be helpful?
Now, to get back to my point.
You say
Our Universe isn't expanding!!!
Only the matter/galaxies in our infinite Universe are expanding.
Well, what you said was
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.And I asked how come it was only that far away if it has been traveling that fast for an infinite time.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 15:27:33
OK, you said to let you know if I had problems reading that.Well, I advise you to read the explanation about theory D.
Well, yes, because it's nonsense.
"a new Born BH"
Born of what?
"arrived to our Infinite Universe."
From where?
"was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space."
How come?
After reading it, you should get the answers for all your questions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 15:34:48
I read it; it didn't help.OK, you said to let you know if I had problems reading that.Well, I advise you to read the explanation about theory D.
Well, yes, because it's nonsense.
"a new Born BH"
Born of what?
"arrived to our Infinite Universe."
From where?
"was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space."
How come?
After reading it, you should get the answers for all your questions.
Because it keeps on being full of stuff like that which simply does not make sense.
Now, please answer my simple question.
Why is the galaxy so close after it has been leaving us so fast, for so long?
Post by: Bobolink on 13/04/2020 16:48:28
After reading it, you should get the answers for all your questions.I didn't see any answers, just statements with no evidence or statements that are counter to evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 16:49:54
Now, please answer my simple question.
Why is the galaxy so close after it has been leaving us so fast, for so long?
Let me explain:
Any New born BH can only drifts away from its Mather galaxy at almost a fixed velocity but at any direction.
For example, Triangulum is moving away from its Mother galaxy - Andromeda
In the same token, any nearby dwarf galaxy is also drifting away from the Milky way..
I have estimated that the drifting velocity is 220Km/sec.
Those dwarf galaxies can't increase there velocity relative to the Milky way and they also can't change their drifting drirection.
If it is 220 Km/s than it will stay almost the same forever (assuming that there are no external interruptions as gravity forces)
However, their BHs children should also drifts away from them at 220Km/s. By doing so, if they drifts away from the Milky way than their relative velocity with reference to the Milky way is 2 x 220Km/s = 440Km/s
However, if they move in the direction of the milky way, than their relative velocity with reference to the Milky way is:
220 Km/s - 220km/s = 0
Hence, if the daughter galaxy of one of the nearby dwarf galaxy will move in the direction of the Milky way, it actually should move at a fixed distance with reference to the Milky way (zero velocity).
Therefore, generations over generations should set new galaxies that are moving in all directions and at different velocities relatives to other galaxies.
However, those in the nearby aria should move in a relatively low velocity.
I hope that it is clear by now.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 17:22:42
WHY ARE THEY STILL HERE?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 17:40:22
You keep talking about things drifting away forever.In order to answer your question let's look at the nearby galaxies.
WHY ARE THEY STILL HERE?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies
There are about 195 galaxies.
About 100 galaxies are directly considered as a Satellite of Andromeda or the Milky way.
So, those galaxies are clearly children of the Milky way or Andromeda that are still orbiting around their mother galaxy.
It is quite clear that all/most of the others are also children of the Milky Way or Andromeda but they have already disconnected from the gravity force of their mother galaxy. So, they do not orbit around any galaxy and couldn't be considered as a satellite.
There is also good chance that for some of those galaxies, Andromeda or the Milky way are actually their grandmothers.
If we could verify the velocity and direction of each galaxy in this list we could easily estimate which is the mother' galaxy.
Therefore, all the 195 galaxies are direct products of the Milky Way or Andromeda.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 17:42:11
(which would be a breach of most of the observed laws of physics)?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 17:51:44
Do you think those galaxies are infinitely old?No, they are all still quite young and quite small. (As expected from any young child)
(which would be a breach of most of the observed laws of physics)?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 17:55:44
Or, if you prefer, what caused their (great) grandparents?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 19:28:04
Well, if the universe is infinitely old, and they are young, what caused them?
Or, if you prefer, what caused their (great) grandparents?
We should consider galaxies as we consider people.
However, their life time is quite longer.
So, in our aria there are two main galaxies - Andromeda and Milky way.
They are both quite mature, and quite old. Let's assume that if the age of the milky way is 10 Trillion years then Andromeda is 50 trillion year while most of the other 195 nearby galaxies might be their children and grandchildren.
However, even with that life time of 50 trillion year, it is just a brief moment in the Universe life.
So, if we could go back in time we might verify the mothers of Andromeda and Milky Way.
Actually, we clearly know the velocity and direction of the milky way.
If we could set a direct line which is in the opposite direction of its movement, we might be able to verify the exact location of the Milky Way' mother galaxy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 19:46:03
Given that galaxies dissipate huge amounts of power, how come they haven't burned out yet?
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?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2020 19:55:20
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?
Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.
Galaxy 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.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 20:01:38
Given that galaxies dissipate huge amounts of power, how come they haven't burned out yet?Did you see my answer to kryptid?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 07:19:35I don't fully understand your following question
However, 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 SMBHs
Somehow 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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 20:07:30
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.
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/04/2020 22:09:55
Post by: Kryptid on 14/04/2020 00:09:03
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.
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.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/04/2020 07:08:18
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.
If they are two different things than would you kindly direct me to an article that shows how a comoving distance (real distance) of 46 BLY (without even one word about proper distance), could be set in only 13 BY.
If there is an article that claims that comoving distance is actually based on comoving distance + proper distance, than I also would like to see it.
Even special relatively should be limited by velocities and distances.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:48:12
Galaxy 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.
However, if you think differently, than please explain how special relativity can help us to see a light that is moving away from us at 10 times (or even unlimited times) the speed of light while it is located at 130BLY away from us (or at the infinity).
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.
Except that's exactly what he proposes. He thinks that black holes can literally create matter and energy.
Thanks Kryptid
You fully understand my point of view.
So, at any given moment any BH, MBH, SMBH, Magnatar, Pulsar... should Generate new energy and new mass.
That is the key element for a "living" infinite Universe.
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.
You claim that a BH can't generate any limited new energy/mass, while you believe that the BBT could generate the whole energy/mass for our entire Universe in just a single moment of bang.
Let start with a single BH. Later on if you wish, I will discuss about the atom creation process in the BBT.
BH - Particle Pair is created at the Photosphere around the BH. The energy in the new created pair mass is transformed from the spinning BH by the magnetic force. The acceleration of almost speed of light for this new born pair is given for free by the ultra gravity force of the black hole. Only one pair of particle might be created at any given moment.
So, how it really works?
I have already explained it as follow:
New mass creation:
The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does.
Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So, new pair of particles can be created in the photosphere around a BH or SMBH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton."
" if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
In order to produce a positron-electron pair, the energy in their mass of 1.022 MeV is transformed by the magnetic force from the spinning BH. However, at the moment of creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
The energy for that high orbital kinetic energy is given by the gravity force of the BH.
So, while the energy in the mass had been transformed from the energy of the BH by magnetic field, the orbital kinetic energy is given for free by the BH' gravity force.
Please remember that at the moment of the new pair creation at the photosphere, It must fully obey to Newton orbital law.
We can get better understanding by look at the following Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
How Lorentz force works on those new particles pair?
In order to get better understanding let's look at the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=135&v=RqSode4HZrE&feature=emb_title
The North/South Poles of the SMBH is up/down with reference to their orbital direction. Therefore, based on that video, one charged particle should be deflected to the left while the other one would be deflected right. Hence, one particle should be deflected inwards to the SMBH direction, while the other one would be deflected outwards to the direction of the accretion disc.
The deflection inwards would decrease its altitude or radius from the SMBH. Therefore, it will face stronger gravity force from the SMBH.
That radius change will force it to fall in as its current orbital velocity would be too low. As it is stated in the following video:
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth" (or to the SMBH in our case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
On the other hand, the other particles must be deflected outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, its speed would be too high with reference to its current radius. Even a small deflection should bring it under the influence of the inwards side of the accretion disc. At that aria it would have to obey to the magnetic forces/pressures that are generated by the accretion disc itself. We know that the average orbital velocity at the accretion disc is about 0.3c. So, the new arrival particle might bang with the other particles already orbiting at the inwards side of the accretion ring and reduces its velocity from almost the speed of light to about 0.3c. At that moment it would become a new member at the plasma.
With regards to temperature – A new created particle must come with Ultra high temp. Adding to that the ultra high pressures, forces, Electric current flow and fusion activity in the plasma would increase the temp to almost 10^9 c at the accretion disc.
This separation deflection process is vital. Without it, any new created particle pair would be eliminated at the same moment of their creation as each particle carry a negative charged with reference to the other.
Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.
Please let me know if you still see any violation in the first law of thermodynamics.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/04/2020 07:12:46
Please let me know if you still see any violation in the first law of thermodynamics.
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2020 11:03:14
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.Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/04/2020 22:17:18
If new energy is created, then the first law has been violated.The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law as we actually discuss on energy transformation.
In order to understand that let's go to the law itself:
Let's focus on the First_law_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, as heat and as thermodynamic work, and relating them to a function of a body's state, called Internal energy."
It is also stated clearly:
"The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed"
Based on Theory D new energy is not created out of nothing.
On the contrary, due to the law of conservation of energy, energy can be transformed from one form to another.
I have deeply explained how that energy transformation works.
The key element in this process is the orbital kinetic energy that is given by the gravity force.
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.
I have set this process base on your explanation.
If you think that there is a contradiction with the law of thermodynamics, than please let me know where is that contradiction?
However, if we discuss about a violation, than the BBT sets violation to several physics law:
as follow:
BBT violation
Based 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, expansion
So, 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 Annihilation
Let'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#Examples
In 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 Decay
http://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...
Post by: Kryptid on 14/04/2020 22:49:53
Please don't give up.
There is absolutely no point in me continuing this because you constantly twist the definitions of scientific terms to suit your agenda. No attempt at explaining how science works has worked on you. The fact that you said something so completely and utterly ridiculous as this...
The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law
..proves it.
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? Once you see their responses, you should realize that it isn't me who is misinterpreting what conservation of energy means.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/04/2020 05:53:45
There is absolutely no point in me continuing this because you constantly twist the definitions of scientific terms to suit your agenda.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?
However, while you speak in the name of scientific terms and thermodynamics laws, you have totally ignored all the severe violations of the BBT for those scientific terms and laws.
I have just introduces few violations. There are so many more. I have also clearly introduced articles that claim that the BBT is wrong.
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?If I will ask them about the energy source that was needed for the BBT, would they know the answer?
Why the creation of new energy in the BBT process doesn't violate the conservation of energy?
Why our scientists insist to ignore the energy source for the BBT?
If they have no clue about the energy source of the BBT, how do you know that it can work?
Why do you constantly claim that it is not our job to know about it?
If it is not our job, than why do you insist that it is my job to verify the extra energy for the pair creation activity?
If you give yourself a waiver from the energy source that is needed for the entire universe in a single moment based on the BBT, why don't you give me also a waiver for just one single pair particle in a given moment as needed for theory D?
The particle creation isn't fantasy or twisting the definitions of scientific terms. Our scientists clearly observe that activity in real life in the BH Photosphere!!! There is no higher proving than direct observation. As we clearly see that creation activity, than it proves that theory D is based on real science.QuoteThe creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law..proves it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2020 09:56:58
Sorry, 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.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to address this.
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.Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2020 09:53:33
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.
There is no violation.
The explanation was just in front of your eyes.
However, as usual, it seems as an impossible mission for you to read it all..
So, let me copy it for you:
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?
I hope that this time you could read all of it.
If you did so, than you probably have got the answer.
However, I see that the question about the thermodynamics law represents "double standard"..
You wish to disqualify theory D by claiming that it doesn't offer a valid energy source for the creation of new particle at BH photosphere, while our scientists don't have a basic clue about the energy source that was needed for the BBT
Actually, I have proved that a bang can't generate even one tinny particle even if you call it a "Big Bang" and you get an Unlimited Dense and Heat for free, while I have offered real observation for the creation of the new particles at the BH photosphere..
Let me tell you story about that double standard:
You stay next to a train full with apples.
You take one and eat. Than a burglar takes the whole train and tells you that it is forbidden to take an apple which doesn't belong to you.
In the same token, our scientists have no basic idea about energy source that is needed for the BBT in order to generate the whole Universe in one Big bang. Therefore, by definition they can't fulfill that thermodynamics law.
Hence, it is a real double standard that in one hand you try to criticize the missing source of energy that is needed for the creation of participle pair in a BH photosphere (that we clearly see), while on the other hand your theory (BBT) totally disobey the same thermodynamics law that you offer.
.
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?Do you mean: why stars can live so long time?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Well, stars can live much longer than your estimation.
Actually, our scientists have no basic clue about the real age of stars.
Let's use our sun as an example:
Our scientists claim that its age is about 6 BY.
This is a fatal error.
In order to estimate the real age of a star you need to understand where and how new born stars had been created.
All/most of the stars are created in a gas cloud near the SMBH. There is no way to create a star outside the center of the galaxy. Without the impact of the Ultra high nearby gravity force and electromagnetism that a SMBH can offer, there is no way to form any star.
So, Our Sun had been created at one of those gas clouds orbiting the SMBH.
All the matter/ molecular for those gas clouds had been delivered from the Molecular jet stream by the matter that falls back to the galactic disc
So, if we could verify the time that it takes the Sun to drift all the way from the center to our location, than we could get a perfect understanding for the real age of our Sun.
I estimate that the min age of our whole solar system should be 500 BY (Yes, including all the planets and moons).
Therefore, the stars could live much more than your current estimation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2020 10:55:05
However, as usual, it seems as an impossible mission for you to read it all..i read it.
It didn't help.
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.
Actually, our scientists have no basic clue about the real age of stars.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.
Considering the Solar system, if the Sun isn't " a bit older, but not hugely older than the Earth" then you have to explain why the Sun waited for billions of years (or more) before starting the process of forming the Earth.
Do you mean: why stars can live so long time?Did you not see what I posted?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
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.
We should look up and see only the heat death of the universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2020 16:26:22
I accept your point that, at first glance the BB looks like a violation of the conservation laws.Do you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?
It's not.
If you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something, then say so.
Again - what is the source of energy for the BBT?
Try something more logical please.
So far I didn't get any answer for the following points:
1. Energy source for the BBT:Can you please try to answer?
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 Annihilation
Let'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#Examples
In 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 Decay
http://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.
Can you please explain how can you fit real distance of 46BLY in only 13BY.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 08:00:31Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.
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?
How the CMB radiation that had emitted 13 BY ago could get to us after crossing real distance of 46BLY?
We have experimental data about fusion rates.Your data is incorrect as your theory is incorrect.
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.
All the planets and Moons have been created as a hot gas balls at the same day as the sun and with the same matter.
Our current earth has less than 2% from its day of birth.
So, it was significantly much bigger, very hot and full with Hydrogen and helium.
It probably took it very long time to cool down and eject most of the light gas.
Why do you claim that: "If 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.You can all laugh as you wish, however you all have no clue how our universe really works.
There is no expire date for a star.
There is no successor for a star.
Once it die it dies forever. Its mass could be lost in space or be used to create new BH. There is no way to form new star from the mass of a star that have lost its life in a supernova
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2020 16:33:15
Your data is incorrect as your theory is incorrect.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.
Do 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.
Why do you claim that: "If Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium"?Because I can do arithmetic.
Once it die it dies forever. Its mass could be lost in spaceAnd yet, after what you claim is an infinite time, there are still some here.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/04/2020 14:46:17
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.Can you please direct me to the article that could confirm the age of the Universe by uranium?
It's not a "theory" as you put it, it's an observation.
Please remember that based on theory D each planet and moon had been created as hot gas ball.
So, how the Uranium could set the age of a hot gas ball?
So, you claim that the following answer can generate the total energy for the BBT: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.However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?
Why did you ignore my following question:
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?
So, let's see if I understand it correct.
The radiation which had been emitted at the time of the Atom formation had been ejected to the open space.
Due to the expansion it actually had crossed 46BLY in only 13 BY.
So how could it be?
The real distance is only 13BY, therefore, due to the expansion the radiation had to cross
46-13=31BLY
So, how can we force the radiation to cross 31BLY directly due to the expansion?
31/13 = 2.4
It actually represents a velocity which is 2.4 times the speed of light.
I wonder how only the expansion can contribute a velocity which is relevant to 2.4 times the speed of light?
This is a big question mark by itself.
In any case, this Expansion increases the distance between any nearby Atoms.
However, in order to form Stars we need to brig atoms together.
So, the expansion contradicts the process of forming new stars.
Therefore, the BBT has a built in contradiction that prevents the formation of new stars.
We need the expansion in space to explain the extra 31 BY of comoving distance in the CMB. Which is equivalent to extra velocity of 2.4 the speed of light.
While if there is an expansion in space, than we actually increases the distance between any nearby atoms and prevent the requested process that is needed to form star or even Asteroid.
Therefore, this is one more input why the BBT is absolutely none relevant
It is amazing that there are so negative points in the BBT that each one of them by itself should knock down that theory
How could it be that our scientists with deep knowledge in science totally ignore all negative points and real observations that the BBT is wrong?
I do recall a discussion with Kryptid. He told me that the BBT isn't a perfect theory, but it is currently the best that is available.
However, Now I offer a perfect theory for our Universe.
It covers any aspect of the Universe activity and fully meets any observation.
Based on this theory we can understand where we had been and where we should be in the Future.
It meets the Universe by 100%. However, you still refuse even to consider it or any other theory for our Universe.
What is there in the BBT that all of you try to protect as it was some sort of holly crown?
Are you sure that the BBT is all about science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2020 15:30:01
However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.You seem to have finally seen the problem in your idea.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?
In that same way that the tiny bangs are impossible, so is the perpetual light from stars like the Sun.
So, you now see why I'm asking the question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 19:46:03
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/04/2020 06:20:28
No. There is no problem with the energy transformation in theory D.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:46:17You seem to have finally seen the problem in your idea.
However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?
You are more than welcome to read it, if you didn't read it yet.
However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.
If you add to that all the other problems with the BBT than this theory should be set by now in the garbage of the history
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Well, If we discuss about stars:
Our scientists claim that there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies.
Try to calculate how many stars there are just in those 195 nearby galaxies (including our galaxy).
Only in Andromeda there are over than one trillion stars.
So, let's assume that there are x Trillion stars. Therefore, we can say that outside the galaxies (Just in that nearby area) there are at least x Trillion stars + 1 one more.
How the BBT could explain that Observation?
I assume that when our scientists have discovered that phenomenon they were very "Puzzled" as usual and as expected from anyone who is using totally wrong theory.
On the other hand, Theory D gives perfect explanation for that observation.
In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.
Some of them might collide with each other in the open space, some might blow up in a supernova and some might be converted into BH.
However, why are you so sure that all of them must have a limited file cycle?
If we discuss about BH or especially SMBH, than there is good chance that at some point of time the SMBH will be so massive that it could be converted to Magnatar or Pulsar.
By that time it would probably kick out all the stars that it was hosting in its galaxy
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2020 12:32:03
No. There is no problem with the energy transformation in theory D.Yes there is.
You are more than welcome to read it, if you didn't read it yet.I started, but it's based on something that's not true; so I stopped.
However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.No, I didin't.
If you add to that all the other problems with the BBT than this theory should be set by now in the garbage of the historyWhat problems?
You haven't pointed any out.
You have just made it clear that you don't understand it.
Try to calculate how many stars there are just in those 195 nearby galaxies (including our galaxy).That's not relevant to my point, and you know it. It is sufficient that there is one star left- the Sun, for example- to show that there's a problem with your idea.
Only in Andromeda there are over than one trillion stars.
So, let's assume that there are x Trillion stars. Therefore, we can say that outside the galaxies (Just in that nearby area) there are at least x Trillion stars + 1 one more.
Stop wasting time and answer the question.
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.I don't. I'm just saying that their life is finite, and that any finite number is less than infinity so any star should have burned out if the universe is infinitely old.
Some of them might collide with each other in the open space, some might blow up in a supernova and some might be converted into BH.The point is that tehSun hasn't done any of those things, it is still here.
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
However, why are you so sure that all of them must have a limited file cycle?The conservation laws which are a consequence of the observed symmetries of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
If we discuss about BH or especially SMBH, than there is good chance that at some point of time the SMBH will be so massive that it could be converted to Magnatar or Pulsar.
By that time it would probably kick out all the stars that it was hosting in its galaxy
That may be hypothetically possible (though I doubt it), but it doesn't help.
You can put forward any process and I will ask the same question.
Why hasn't it finished yet, if the universe is infinitely old?
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?
You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/04/2020 05:02:00
However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.Ok
No, I didin't.
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT, than would you kindly direct me to that article?
In wiki it is stated that they don't have any idea about the source of energy for the BBT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available."
However they add that: "In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."
So, they don't claim that they know what is the source of energy, they just claim the status of that energy at the "The earliest phases"
Therefore, at Time Zero of the BBT the universe was: "filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
However, now comes the Biggest contradiction to that assumption:
At Wiki it is stated:
"The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, and such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
However, in order to bypass that "physical impossibility" they came with a brilliant idea that: "physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang."
So the contradiction is as follow:
If there was no time before the BBT than our scientists can't claim that before the BBT Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures.
They have to clock the time from the moment that something came to our totally empty Universe.
So if there was something as: "very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures", than clearly the time was ticking from the first moment of accumulation that energy in the Universe.
Therefore, the time was already ticking before the zero time of the BBT..
However, as we already know the time kills the BBT as : "such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
Therefore, Just on this issue we should set the BBT deep in the garbage.
So, I have used an article to prove my statement that the BBT is totally none relevant.
If you still think that there is a way to bypass this obstacle, than please introduce an article that confirms the source of that infinite energy before the BBT and how it could be created and accumulated in the universe without ticking the time.
Please use articles to backup your understanding as I did!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2020 08:43:56
OkIt doesn't need one.
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
than would you kindly direct me to that article?It's not that important, but you should learn the difference between "then" and "than"
Please use articles to backup your understanding as I did!!!You don't have the understanding to back up.
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?
You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/04/2020 14:07:52
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:02:00Thanks for this Article.
Ok
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT
It doesn't need one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
It is very interesting.
However, did you try to read it first?
In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.
"the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist."
However, based on the BBT, there was no matter before the Big Bang.
Therefore, without matter, there is no gravity and therefore, the Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT in order to set the first High dense and high temp stage just before the bang itself.
So, this idea can't help the BBT.
Please try to offer better idea.
I would like to remind you that you have also totally ignored the contradiction between zero time and infinite energy that was requested to the BBT:
At Wiki it is stated:So, can you please explain that contradiction?
"The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, and such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
However, in order to bypass that "physical impossibility" they came with a brilliant idea that: "physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang."
So the contradiction is as follow:
If there was no time before the BBT the
n our scientists can't claim that before the BBT Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures.
They have to clock the time from the moment that something came to our totally empty Universe.
So if there was something as: "very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures", thקn clearly the time was ticking from the first moment of accumulation that energy in the Universe.
Therefore, the time was already ticking before the zero time of the BBT..
However, as we already know the time kills the BBT as : "such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
There is one more key issue.
Please read the following message:
"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."Let's assume that somehow we have got an infinite energy for free.
Just to our discussion, lets assume that Divine-power/god had delivered all of that infinite energy.
However, it is stated that "the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
So, the Universe must be INFINITE!
If the universe was finite, then how can we claim for any sort of "homogeneously and isotropically" at that finite Universe?
Even if we think about a singularity for the Big bang then still it is a distortion in the Universe that contradicts the "homogeneously and isotropically"
It is quite clear that without that key idea for "homogeneously and isotropically" the BBT is actually none relevant.
So, if there was a big bang, it could only work at infinite Universe that "was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
If you have better idea, then please share it with us.
I actually do appreciate your effort to support that none relevant theory that is called BBT even if you can't offer any article to support your ideas.
So, please don't give up. At least you do your best to hold the theory flag above the water.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2020 14:27:53
I would like to remind you that you have also totally ignored the contradiction between zero time and infinite energy that was requested to the BBT:I have ignored many of the things you made up.
In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.And there is matter in the universe.
Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT iIt can now.
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?
You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/04/2020 15:52:15
In this article our scientists don't even try to claim that this idea could deliver any sort of energy to the BBT.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52It can now
Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT
But as usual, you assume that your knowledge is much superior then those scientists.
Based on the BBT, there were no matter before the bang.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52And there is matter in the universe.
In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.
Just to remind you that even the time didn't start its ticking before the bang and the first Atom had been created only 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
Kryptid have already told me that our scientists don't really know what is the BBT' energy source.
So, it is clear that our scientists are not using this idea of zero energy as a source of energy for the BBT.
However, somehow you hope that you know much better than all of them, while you can't offer any article that could support your misunderstanding in this issue.
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?The Sun and any other star could live long life. So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.
I also do not dare to claim that the age of our galaxy/SMBH is infinite.
However, I claim that they are old. Much, much older than those 13.8 BY.
This time represents less than a brief moment in our universe with its infinite age.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2020 18:13:18
In this article our scientists don't even try to claim that this idea could deliver any sort of energy to the BBT.Do you really not get it?
The Big Bang does not need an energy source.
But as usual, you assume that your knowledge is much superior then those scientists.OK, two things.
I am a scientist.
More importantly, I'm not assuming I understand the BBT better than them.
I am saying I understand it better than you.
You are suffering from the misunderstanding that it needs energy.
The thing about the zero energy universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
is that it doesn't take any energy to create it..
There's a hint in the name.
OK, now since the BB doesn't need an energy source, this
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT, than would you kindly direct me to that article?Makes no sense.
So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.I'm fairly sure I did.
It's just that you ignore facts.
The conservation laws which are a consequence of the observed symmetries of the universe.There we go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
I did provide a source.
I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.I didn't say you had.
I asked why it hasn't burned out yet.
That's not the same thing.
The point is that, after an infinite time, stars shouldn't be "starting",
So, any finite age for the Sun makes no sense.
After an infinite time, anything and everything that can happen will have happened.
And that includes the death of the Sun.
Yet it still shines
So...
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?
You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 03:20:14
The Big Bang does not need an energy source.Sorry
This assumption sets a severe contradiction with the first stage of the BBT as stated at wiki:
" the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
Therefore, our scientists didn't start the BBT while the energy is zero.
You have stated clearly that you don't understand the BBT better than them,
I am a scientist.
More importantly, I'm not assuming I understand the BBT better than them.
In this case, how could you claim that "the Big Bang does not need an energy source" while they clearly have stated that an energy is needed for the first stage of the BBT?
If you still believe that those scientists have no clue in science, than would you kindly offer an article that confirms your severe mistake for no need an energy source?
If not, than it shows that your following statement is also incorrect:
I am saying I understand it better than you.It's time for you to read some relevant articles and improve your knowledge in science.
You are suffering from the misunderstanding that it needs energy.Sorry again
The thing about the zero energy universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
is that it doesn't take any energy to create it..
You suffer again by severe misunderstanding.
In this article they clearly claim that a matter is needed to create the zero energy.
Before the Big Bang there was no matter.
Therefore, there is no way to apply that idea for the first stage of the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
"in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist"
I have already explained it to you.
Unfortunately, (and as Usual) you don't take the effort to read and understand.
Based on the BBT, there were no matter before the bang.
Just to remind you that even the time didn't start its ticking before the bang and the first Atom had been created only 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
Kryptid have already told me that our scientists don't really know what is the BBT' energy source.
So, it is clear that our scientists are not using this idea of zero energy as a source of energy for the BBT.
However, somehow you hope that you know much better than all of them, while you can't offer any article that could support your misunderstanding in this issue.
However, this zero energy idea confirms the basic idea in theory D for the energy that is contributed to the new created particle pair by gravity:
"its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity."
So, the gravity is a key element for new energy in our Universe.
However, you first need mater (as BH) to get gravity and use the benefit of this theory --- and that exactly the base of theory D.
Thanks again for this article.
I have already answered this question:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:52:15I didn't say you had.
I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.
I asked why it hasn't burned out yet.
That's not the same thing.
The point is that, after an infinite time, stars shouldn't be "starting",
So, any finite age for the Sun makes no sense.
After an infinite time, anything and everything that can happen will have happened.
And that includes the death of the Sun.
Yet it still shines
So...
The Sun and any other star could live long life. So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.If you think that star has a limited time frame of only few Billion years, than please show your data in a clear article.
If not, please don't ask about it any more!
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 09:09:41
Therefore, there is no way to apply that idea for the first stage of the BBT.It didn't happen in stages.
Either you are trolling, or you don't understand the article.
Which is it?
"in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist"And we have them. They both came into being at the same time- nearly 14 Bn years back.
Because they happened at the same time, there is no need to worry about how one happened without the other.
And that's the point you seem to deliberately ignore.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 09:15:03
If you think that star has a limited time frame of only few Billion years, than please show your data in a clear article.And there's the other point you miss.
If not, please don't ask about it any more!
I could find you articles about stellar evolution but that's not the point.
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.
We should look up and see only the heat death of the universe.
If the life of a star is not infinite, then they should all have died out but they have not.
So,
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 14:27:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?
You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 10:43:49
If the life of a star is not infinite, then they should all have died out but they have not.You have totally got lost.
So,
In our infinite age Universe there are many young stars and galaxies.
Based on theory D all the stars in our Milky Way galaxy for example are quite young.
Just to understand that quite young could be 100 BY or 500BY.
As you move closer to the SMBH, the Stars are younger.
S2 for example is quite young star.
Its age could be just several million years.
This star also carries with him Planets and moons.
If we had the technology for that, we could see that all of those planets and moons are actually hot gas balls.
Some of them might be big as our big gas planets and some might be quite small.
S2 is not there by itself.
It must have at least one twin. Its twin could be at the same size as S2. Unfortunately, we don't see its light. So, it could be a dark star or even a small BH.
S2 orbits around their common center of mass.
Also our Sun should have a twin brother.
We also can't see it. But it is surly there.
In any case, all the stars are drifting outwards over time.
So, sooner or later any new born star should be ejected from the galaxy.
Our galaxy acts as one of the Biggest Star sprinkler in the Universe.
Most of the stars outside the galaxy might be quite old.
However, some of the stars could be ejected from the galaxy while they are still young.
So, I can't tell you the maximal life cycle for a star. I can only assume that it could be more than one trillion years - assuming that it didn't collide with any other object.
By the way, as long as a star is located in the galaxy, it is safe.
The chance to collide with other star in the galaxy might be less than winning the lottery.
However, as the star is ejected outwards from the galaxy its life could be end by a sever collision with other nearby star.
Therefore, as long as our sun holds itself in the galaxy - we all are safe.
One day the sun must be ejected out of the galaxy. At that time the whole solar system could end its life by unexpected collision.
Let's hope that the Local gravity force at our spiral arm could hold long enough our sun in the galaxy.
If we could built a space ship that can take us to other solar system closer to the center of the galaxy, we could extend the mankind life for longer time..
However, we can't just go too close to the center as the rocky planets didn't evolve yet from the hot gas balls
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 10:57:49
You have totally got lost.No.
You are the one who is lost.
As I pointed out, regardless of structure, of black holes, of lies about the ages of stars; in an infinitely old universe, everything has already happened.
Everything already finished, because, no matter how long it took, it has had an infinite amount of time; so it has finished it.
Do you not understand that?
And, since everything has happened in an infinitely old universe, among the things that must have happened is that any stars burned out.
All the stars already burned out in any infinitely old universe.
Do you understand that?
And since we have stars, the universe can not be infinitely old.
Yet, you claim it is.
So,
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:13:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 14:27:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?
You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 11:02:49
This assumption is correct as long as you hold the unrealistic idea of the BBT.
However, in theory D it is totally different.
At any given moment new mass is created around any BH/SMBH in the Universe.
Therefore the Universe could live forever and ever.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 11:53:00
However, in theory D it is totally different.Yes, because "theory" D is based on something which we know is not true.
If the universe was infinitely old, everything would have died by now.
It hasn't so we know the universe has a finite age.
At any given moment new mass is created around any BH/SMBH in the Universe.So, the "tiny bangs" I asked about earlier.
Why didn't you just say "yes" back then?
If you had, I could have already pointed out that you seem to have reinvented this failed isea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests
And you could have avoided wasting any further time.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 14:12:50
If you had, I could have already pointed out that you seem to have reinvented this failed isea.Based on your limited point of view there are only two options
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests
BBT or steady state. Nothing could be in between.
You might consider that as the steady state couldn't give an answer for the observations, than the only available Theory is the BBT.
Therefore, you have no willing to open your mind and verify different approach.
It is clear that you and almost any person that consider himself as a scientist are totally locked in the BBT box.
You all totally ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT.
It seems that if you claim that you are scientist than by definition your main mission is to protect the BBT from any sort of attack.
Therefore, you have no interest to read theory D or any other Theory.
It seems that just the activity of Reading other theory would be considered as a sin or a crime.
Why is it?
Actually, you don't need to be scientist in order to verify that the BBT is clearly incorrect.
So, how could it be that our scientists that speak in the name of science do whatever it takes to protect so strongly the BBT?
I'm positively sure that you all know better than me why the BBT is none relevant from pure science prospective
Therefore, It is quite clear to me by now that the BBT is much more than a pure science.
If it was just science than long time ago our scientists would probably set the BBT in the garbage of the history.
So, could it be that there is also some sort of belief in the BBT?
By highlighting the negative points against the BBT, I do feel as I try to convince someone who believes in god that there is no god in our Universe.
I assume that most of the mankind in the world believes in the same god.
They could be Christians Jews or Muslims.
Hence, I would never ever dare to tell anyone of them that his belief is incorrect
Therefore, I wonder why do you all wish to believe so strongly ONLY in the BBT and ignore all the contradictions.
What is there in the BBT that could set such strong belief?
As you all totally ignore all the observations that contradict the BBT, could it be that this theory is more than just science for you?
Why is it so important for our scientists to protect the BBT?
Is there any sort of faith or belief that our scientists share in order to protect the BBT?
Did I miss something?
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 15:21:03
Why is it so important for our scientists to protect the BBT?No one is protecting the BBT, it just happens to be the best theory that explains observations. If someone comes up with a theory that explains it better they would win the Nobel Prize and the scientific community would say that's peachy keen! Theory D[umb] is not going to do it, sadly
Is there any sort of faith or belief that our scientists share in order to protect the BBT?
Did I miss something?As pointed out by Bored chemist you have missed quite a lot.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 16:36:27
BBT or steady state. Nothing could be in between.Either it banged or it didn't.
Are you proposing a Ba, or a ng! ?
Did I miss something?Yes, the impossibility of an infinitely old universe, and thus the impossibility of your so-called "theory".
You all totally ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT.Show me one.
It only takes one.
Go on...
Give us a single observation which is inconsistent with the BBT.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 16:38:47
If someone comes up with a theory that explains it better they would win the Nobel PrizeThanks
Theory D is the Ultimate theory for our Universe.
It gives perfect explanation to all observations.
It also knocks down the BBT and sets it in the garbage of the history.
No more "Puzzled" scientists
So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 16:54:29
Theory D is the Ultimate theory for our Universe.It's not a theory.
It's plainly wrong.
So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?Hard to say. First of all you have to come up with a good idea.
Are you planning to do that?
The other thing you need to be able to do is support that idea.
So, for example, if someone asks "What can you show us which is inconsistent with the BBT?" you will need to learn not to ignore them.
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 17:06:07
So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 17:13:10
My guess is this, or something like itSo, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 17:24:44
It's not a theory.How can you claim for that while you didn't even try to read it and understand how it really works?
It's plainly wrong.
Could it be that you have disqualify theory D just because your main mission is to protect the BBT?
Yes, the impossibility of an infinitely old universe, and thus the impossibility of your so-called "theory".It is forbidden to qualify or disqualify one theory with other theory.
As I have stated, based on the BBT, it is clearly impossible to have infinite old Universe.
However, Theory D isn't BBT.
Based on theory D, new matter is created constantly in the photosphere around BH/SMBH
Therefore, there is no limit for the size or age of the Universe
If you still think differently, then would you please show why an infinite Universe which generates constantly new matter can't live forever?
Show me one.https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
It only takes one.
Go on...
Give us a single observation which is inconsistent with the BBT.
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
Is it good enough?
I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.Thanks for your deep concern about me.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?
I'm fully Ok.
You don't know me. Let me just tell you that I have master in engineering and communications
I was involved in the development of edge technologies.
After learning science and physical laws, it was very clear to me that there is a fatal error with the BBT.
I have developed theory D with help from this forum.
I highly advice you to read the theory and get your own impression from it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 17:35:41
How can you claim for that while you didn't even try to read it and understand how it really works?Because it assumes something which we know to be untrue.
As I have stated, based on the BBT, it is clearly impossible to have infinite old Universe.Also, as I have pointed out, Not based on the BBT it is impossible to have an infinitely old Universe.
The fact that the universe is not infinitely old was pointed out by Olber a long time before the BBT was introduced.
So, I'm not saying your idea is wrong because it conflicts with the BBT.
I am saying it is wrong because it goes dark at night.
If you still think differently, then would you please show why an infinite Universe which generates constantly new matter can't live forever?Again?
Why?
Were you not paying attention last time?
Oh well- if you must
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests
And the references there, particularly this one
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
After deep learning science and physical laws, it was very clear to me that there is a fatal error with the BBT.Then for F***'s sake tell us what it is!.
Who knows- you might even get a Nobel prize out of it.
I have master in engineering and communicationsRight for the wrong reason. You have many masters.
You may also have a master's in engineering and communications.
It's ironic given how poor your communications here are.
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 18:34:38
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-spaceNo it isn't. That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers. The actual paper and the researchers do not say that. For a fellow that has a masters in engineering, your lack of rigor is startling.
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
Is it good enough?
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 19:01:55
Can you please direct me to the article that could confirm the age of the Universe by uranium?No that would be impossible since there was no uranium formed from the big bang. If you had any knowledge about the actual BBT you would not ask such a stupid question.
Elements heavier than iron are formed from super novae.
Quote
Please remember that based on theory D each planet and moon had been created as hot gas ball.Another reason that we can conclude that your theory is a just idle conjecture with no supporting evidence.
So, how the Uranium could set the age of a hot gas ball?
The 2 main isotopes of uranium are U-238 and U-235. U-235 is used in reactors. There are places on earth where there have been natural nuclear reactors. The concentration of U-235, in conjunction with ground water produced sustained chain reactions that resulted in low power production of about 100 kw. These natural reactors existed more than 2 billion years ago and it is no longer possible for these natural reactors to exist. The U-235 necessary for the natural chain reaction has decayed to such low levels that it is not possible for sustained reactions to occur now. This of course points to the relative young age of the earth, young relative to your infinite age balderdash.
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 19:11:43
In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.There is a finite amount of hydrogen in a star, therefore there is a finite amount of fusion that will occur, therefore when the finite amount of fuel is consumed the star will die. How do you not know this if you are trying to make theories in astrophysics?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/04/2020 19:49:29
No it isn't. That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers.
Indeed so. Express is not a good website to get news from. It is filled with misleading, click-bait articles.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 23:59:20
The fact that the universe is not infinitely old was pointed out by Olber a long time before the BBT was introduced.I have already answered this question.
So, I'm not saying your idea is wrong because it conflicts with the BBT.
I am saying it is wrong because it goes dark at night.
Why is it so difficult?
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?
Everything in our Universe is relative (you can ask Einstein about it...)Your answer was:
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
In order to understand what will happen with a light that is traveling today to our direction, let call it Light A.
So, as any other light in the Universe, Light A had started today its movement to our direction at the speed of light.
However, that speed of light is relevant to its point of source, which is galaxy A.
Hence, as galaxy A is drifting away from us at 10 Times the speed of light, while Light A is moving in our direction at the speed of light, than the real outcome is that Light A is drifting away from us at 9 times the speed of light.
Therefore, light A won't get to us never and ever.
Interesting, but it just shows that you failed to grasp my other point.My answer was:
If the universe is expanding, and it always has been, why is there anything still near us?
I should be able to see no stars, or a star in every possible direction.
"Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light."
Who put it there? It has been moving away from us for an infinite time (according to you). Why is it still there?
Our Universe isn't expanding!!!So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.
Only the matter/galaxies in our infinite Universe are expanding.
I have already copy the explanation for you.
Post by: Bobolink on 21/04/2020 02:03:49
I am very dubious about your ideas, but let's discuss them. Let's ignore the BBT and concentrate on your ideas.
Am I right in saying your idea is that the universe is infinite in size and infinite in age?
Is another part of your idea that the universe is expanding? In other words you agree with the observations having to do with red shift and other evidence of expansion?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/04/2020 04:51:59
I am very dubious about your ideas, but let's discuss them. Let's ignore the BBT and concentrate on your ideas.Thanks
You are the first person that is really willing to understand Theory D.
So, I do appreciate!
Am I right in saying your idea is that the universe is infinite in size and infinite in age?Yes
Is another part of your idea that the universe is expanding?Our Universe is not expanding. It has infinite space. This space is fixed. There is no way to stretch it or expand it over time.
Only the mater/galaxies are expanding in the infinite space of our universe.
Please read the following explanation about the expansion:
Expansion
Based 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 its own baby BHs.
So, this first BH will become the mother of 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 generations, the relative velocity between the first mother to the last generation 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 generation will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first mother galaxy).
We can see it as a rocket over rocket over….rocket. 1370 times.
It will take it = Te * 1370 generations
Therefore, as far as we look, we see that galaxies are drifting at 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.
In other words you agree with the observations having to do with red shift and other evidence of expansion?
Sure
Theory D gives perfect explanation for that red shift.
It also gives perfect explanation for the CMB.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/04/2020 09:18:16
So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.OK, here's the problem
drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.Things don't travel faster than light.
You can only get that by expanding space itself but.
Our Universe is not expanding.
There's also the problem that matter attracts other matter. so you need to explain what has been pushing all this infinite time (thereby expending an infinite amount of energy- an infinitely worse problem than "funding " the energy for your misunderstanding of the big bang and doubly infinitely worse than actually providing the zero energy needed).
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/04/2020 17:01:40
It is quite clear that whatever I will give you, even if it is correct by 100%, you would never ever accept it.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 23:59:20OK, here's the problem
So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.
This statement is totally incorrect.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 23:59:20Things don't travel faster than light.
drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
I can prove it even based on our current observation:
If we look to the left we see galaxies that are moving away from us almost at the speed of light.
Let's assume that the further galaxy is Galaxy A.
If we look to the right we also see galaxies that are moving away from us at almost the speed of light.
Let's assume that the further galaxy is Galaxy B.
So, you do understand that the velocity between galaxies A to B is 2c.
Now, Lets assume that we stay at galaxy and look all the way to the left.
So, we should see galaxy C at the further most location that is moving away from A at the speed of light.
In the same way if we stay at galaxy B and look all the way for the right we should see galaxy D that is moving also at the sped of the light.
Therefore, If we stay at C than:
Galaxy A should move away from it at the speed of light
Galaxy B should move away at 3c
Galaxy D should move away at 4c.
I hope that by now you do understand that galaxies could move away from each other at the speed which is much higher than the speed of light.
You can only get that by expanding space itself butLet me tell you something about the expanding the space:
This idea is totally wrong. I really can't understand how any person that calls himself scientist could accept this kind of imagination.
However, if you already set yourself in imagination Universe, than why do you limit the imagination for just expanding in space? What's wrong in one more imagination as expanding in time?
So, now think about an expanding space-time and you can set yourself at the infinite at zero time.
Sorry - it's the time for you to stop dreaming.
There is no expansion in time and there is no expansion in space.
The space in our Universe is Infinite and it was in that condition even before the BBT and before any kind of imagination that you wish to believe on.
Even if you take infinite energy, you won't be able to expand the space even by one centimeter.
If you believe that it is feasible, than please show the law of physics that could support that imagination.
So, the whole idea of expanding in space should be set ASAP in the garbage.
There's also the problem that matter attracts other matter.
Look at our Galaxy
There are about 400 Billion stars. If mater attracts other mater than how could it be that those 400 B Stars do not collide with each other?
Do you know that our galaxy is crossing the space at almost 600Km/s.
For any star in the galaxy, there is at least one outside.
So, it is clear that as our galaxy cross the space at that high velocity it constantly collide with any star that is located in its way.
So, if mater attracts other mater than why those billion stars (that are outside the galaxy) doesn't penetrate into the galaxy and collide with the stars that are already in the galaxy?
Why don't we see them all as they expected to cross into the galaxy and even cross near the solar system?
Sorry - you have a severe misunderstanding about that idea.
so you need to explain what has been pushing all this infinite time (thereby expending an infinite amount of energy- an infinitely worse problem than "funding " the energy for your misunderstanding of the big bang and doubly infinitely worse than actually providing the zero energy needed).If you try to understand how theory D really works, than you should understand that at any given moment, infinite no of BH, MBH, SMBH, Magnatar, pulsar… are using the gravity and zero energy mechanism to transform the energy into new matter.
However, it should be quite clear to all of us that you have no intention to abandon the BBT.
Therefore, you have no interest in theory D and you would reject any idea that contradicts the BBT.
I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-spaceSo, what was the reply:
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
Is it good enough?
QuoteQuote from: Bobolink on Yesterday at 18:34:38Indeed so. Express is not a good website to get news from. It is filled with misleading, click-bait articles.
No it isn't. That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers.
However, you totally ignore the idea that this is a clear OBSERVATION.
It isn't just some sort of idea.
In the article it is state that they have observed very Big BH while based on the BBT its age was too young for that size:
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
So, you can't disqualify that observation just because you don't like it.
If the observation is correct, than you have to deal with that "puzzling" issue.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/04/2020 17:58:31
So, you do understand that the velocity between galaxies A to B is 2c.No.
I understand physics.
So I know that , for high velocities, newtonian mechanics (such as the additivity of velocities) is inappropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
Shouldn't you have learned that before trying to say that everybody else is wrong?
This idea is totally wrong. I really can't understand how any person that calls himself scientist could accept this kind of imagination.Because it fits with the observed data.
There are about 400 Billion stars. If mater attracts other mater than how could it be that those 400 B Stars do not collide with each other?
Because they are in orbit. But, if you give them enough time, they will crash into eachother.
So, as you say, they exist.
That's proof that the universe isn't infinitely old.
you would reject any idea that contradicts the BBT.Well, BBT works, and explains our observations. Your idea, which you keep calling a theory even though it isn't, does not.
And your idea is based on something which we know to be false.
I'm happy to give up on the BBT for a better idea. but not for a plainly worse one.
However, you totally ignore the idea that this is a clear OBSERVATION.And you miss the point that the comment about BBT is NOT AN OBSERVATION.
It's an indication that our models of black holes need revisiting. That's no great shock. Our knowledge of BH is, obviously, incomplete.
I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:You have offered an observation that contradicts one of our models for black holes.
That's really not the same thing.
So your statement "
I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:is false.
Now, since you said you could, perhaps you would like to actually show what's wrong with the BBT.
Post by: Bobolink on 21/04/2020 23:00:40
Our Universe is not expanding. It has infinite space. This space is fixed. There is no way to stretch it or expand it over time.Please don't feed me your paper a piece at a time for your answers.
Only the mater/galaxies are expanding in the infinite space of our universe.
Please read the following explanation about the expansion:
So when we see galaxies moving away from us it is because they are moving through space, not because space is expanding? Correct?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 04:22:39
So when we see galaxies moving away from us it is because they are moving through space, not because space is expanding? Correct?Sure
I understand physics.Our scientists claim that our observable Universe sphere is about 94 BLY. This sphere is just one part in the entire Universe that should be bigger than that. However, they do not claim that we can see further than 13 BLY as they assume that this is the maximal distance that we can still see galaxies that are moving away almost at the speed of light.
So I know that , for high velocities, newtonian mechanics (such as the additivity of velocities) is inappropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
Shouldn't you have learned that before trying to say that everybody else is wrong?
In reality due to this Velocity-addition_formula, there is good chance that we actually see galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light. However, our scientists prefer to claim that the furthest galaxies are moving away ONLY at almost at the speed of light.
I have actually discussed the impact of that formula with Kryptid in the past. If I recall it correctly, he has told me that if an object at the far end space is moving away from us at 1.2 c than theoretically we could still see it. However, there is a limit.
So, let's assume for this discussion that the maximal velocity that we can still see is 1.5c
Now, let's go back to my example:
If we look to the left, we see galaxy A at the furthest location. We assume that it is moving away at almost at the speed of light. However, due to this formula/concept, that galaxy is actually moving away at 1.5c (as this is the maximal velocity that we can still see).
In the same token, if someone was there he cloud only see our galaxy as the furthest galaxy in our direction.
So, we can see to the left galaxy A, while if we look to the right we see galaxy B. Each one of them is moving away from us at the maximal observable velocity of 1.5c.
Therefore, as the velocity between galaxy A to galaxy B is actually 3c, they will clearly won't see each other.
Therefore, our scientists don't claim that we can see a galaxy that is located at 26 BLY away from us (although our observable universe is 94 BLY).
However, based on this Velocity-addition_formula we should set the BBT in the garbage.
If due to this concept we actually see galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, than we actually could see further away from the limited 13 BLY that our scientists have stated.
Therefore, the Big Black hole that our scientists have discovered could be much older than just 13 BY.
So, how could it be that our scientists do not use this Velocity-addition_formula?
As you claim that you understand physics, why don't you use this formula to kick out the BBT? Why only Theory D?
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 05:27:20
SureThat presents a problem, because you said the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity. How does your idea address that issue?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 11:58:12
That presents a problem, because you said the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity. How does your idea address that issue?It is quite clear to me by now that you are using terms/laws/formulas/theories/hypothesis... only to disqualify other theories.
Based on your current understanding about relativity, any galaxy in our Universe couldn't move faster than the speed of light.
However, our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2c
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Our scientists claim that the entire Universe should be quite bigger than this 94 BY
If we just assume that the entire universe is 130 BLY, than a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of 10c.
So, based on the current BBT theory you should know for sure that galaxies are already moving away from each other at a velocity which is much faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, I wonder how could you claim that: "the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity." while you know for sure that based on the BBT galaxies are moving away from each other at least 7 times the speed of light?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 12:32:31
It is quite clear to me by now that you are using terms/laws/formulas/theories/hypothesis... only to disqualify other theories.The fact that we can't get something to move faster than light isn't something that we dreamed up just to make life difficult for your idea.
If reality does not agree with your so-called "theory" it is not because reality is mistaken.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 12:33:55
This sphere is just one part in the entire Universe that should be bigger than that.Why?
You are claiming to know about things outside the observable universe.
Have you been there to check?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 12:36:04
As you claim that you understand physics, why don't you use this formula to kick out the BBT? Why only Theory D?BBT explains it by saying that space expands.
You say space does not expand.
That's the difference.
Did you not realise that?
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 13:38:14
It is quite clear to me by now that you are using terms/laws/formulas/theories/hypothesis... only to disqualify other theories.The way science works is that a hypothesis is presented and the community asks question and challenges the hypothesis to see if it is viable.
Based on your current understanding about relativity, any galaxy in our Universe couldn't move faster than the speed of light.That is correct, according to relativity nothing can move through space at a speed greater than c. Which is why I said this is an issue for your idea. It seems like this is something that should be addressed!
However, our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2cI wanted to talk about your idea not the BBT. As you have said the BBT is wrong so there is no reason to bring it into the conversation.
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Our scientists claim that the entire Universe should be quite bigger than this 94 BY
If we just assume that the entire universe is 130 BLY, than a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of 10c.
So, based on the current BBT theory you should know for sure that galaxies are already moving away from each other at a velocity which is much faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, I wonder how could you claim that: "the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity." while you know for sure that based on the BBT galaxies are moving away from each other at least 7 times the speed of light?I do not know that for sure! Please don't assume you know what I think.
Getting back to your hypothesis, I would like to know how it handles this apparent conflict with relativity. To my way of thinking there are 3(?) options:
1. Relativity is wrong.
2. There is some sort of mechanism in your hypothesis that allows superlumial velocities without violating relativity.
3. The galaxies only appear to be moving faster than light.
Is one of those correct or is it something else?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 14:50:33
I do not know that for sure! Please don't assume you know what I think.So, please look again at my calculation:
our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2cDo you agree that the furthest galaxies at our observable universe are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light (7.23c?)?
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Getting back to your hypothesis, I would like to know how it handles this apparent conflict with relativity. To my way of thinking there are 3(?) options:Well, relativity is relatively.
1. Relativity is wrong.
2. There is some sort of mechanism in your hypothesis that allows superlumial velocities without violating relativity.
3. The galaxy only appear to be moving faster than light.
If you understand theory D, you would see that there is no contradiction.
Let's look at the following example - Rocket over rocket over....rocket.
We know from relativity that:
"Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light"
So, the maximal velocity of a rocket must be finite and significantly less than the speed of light.
However, this is relativity to its base.
Therefore, let's assume that a rocket can travel at 0.01 c.
I hope that you agree that there is no problem with that estimation.
So, let's assume that we fire a rocket (rocket 1) from earth (let's ignore the gravity impact of the earth). This rocket cross the space at 0.01c.
After one day a second rocket (rocket 2) is fired from that rocket 2 also at 0.01c and in the same direction as rocket 1.
In this case, do you agree that the relative velocities are as follow?
Erath to Rocket 1 = 0.01c
Rocket 1 to rocket 2 = 0.01c
Earth to rocket 2 = 0.02c.
Now, if we continue with this process every day than after 10 days:
Earth to rocket 10 = 10 * 0.01 c = 0.1c
With regards to rocket 10.
Let's assume that it can only see rocket 9. In this case, if we were riding on rocket 10 we could think that we are moving at only 0.01c with regards to the space. as rocket 9 is the only relative reference that we have.
If we continue than after 100 days:
Earth to Rocket 100 = 1c
However, again
If rocket 100 can only see rocket 99 it might think that its relative velocity is just 0.01c
If we continue more and more than after 1000 days:
Earth to Rocket 1000 = 10c
Also in this case, rocket 1000 that only see rocket 999 might think that its velocity is only 0.1c
So, Rocket 1000 considers that it is only crossing the space at 0.01 c while relatively to earth it is moving away at 10c.
Do you see any violation in the relativity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 15:31:57
a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2cThat's still wrong.
You can't just add relativistic velocities as if they were apples.
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 15:36:50
Do you agree that the furthest galaxies at our observable universe are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light (7.23c?)?I want to discuss your hypothesis, no need to go over what the BBT says.
Well, relativity is relatively.Yes, that is a clear violation of the theory of relativity. According to relativity no mass can travel at the speed of light let alone exceed it. If laser pulses were sent from earth along side the series of rockets, in this scenario, after rocket 100 the subsequent rockets would pass the laser pulses since they exceed c relative to earth where the laser light is coming from.
If you understand theory D, you would see that there is no contradiction.
Let's look at the following example - Rocket over rocket over....rocket.
We know from relativity that:
"Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light"
So, the maximal velocity of a rocket must be finite and significantly less than the speed of light.
However, this is relativity to its base.
Therefore, let's assume that a rocket can travel at 0.01 c.
I hope that you agree that there is no problem with that estimation.
So, let's assume that we fire a rocket (rocket 1) from earth (let's ignore the gravity impact of the earth). This rocket cross the space at 0.01c.
After one day a second rocket (rocket 2) is fired from that rocket 2 also at 0.01c and in the same direction as rocket 1.
In this case, do you agree that the relative velocities are as follow?
Erath to Rocket 1 = 0.01c
Rocket 1 to rocket 2 = 0.01c
Earth to rocket 2 = 0.02c.
Now, if we continue with this process every day than after 10 days:
Earth to rocket 10 = 10 * 0.01 c = 0.1c
With regards to rocket 10.
Let's assume that it can only see rocket 9. In this case, if we were riding on rocket 9 we could think that we are moving at only 0.01c with regards to the space. as rocket 9 is the only relative reference that we have.
If we continue than after 100 days:
Earth to Rocket 100 = 1c
However, again
If rocket 100 can only see rocket 99 it might think that its relative velocity is just 0.01c
If we continue more and more than after 1000 days:
Earth to Rocket 1000 = 10c
Also in this case, rocket 1000 that only see rocket 999 might think that its velocity is only 0.1c
So, Rocket 1000 considers that it is only crossing the space at 0.01 c while relatively to earth it is moving away at 10c.
Do you see any violation in the relativity?
So it sounds like choice 1? If you agree that choice 1 is correct we can move on, if not we can continue with the relativity discussion.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 15:46:08
Yes, that is a clear violation of the theory of relativity. According to relativity no mass can travel at the speed of light let alone exceed it. If laser pulses were sent from earth along side the series of rockets, in this scenario, after rocket 100 the subsequent rockets would pass the laser pulses since they exceed c relative to earth where the laser light is coming from.
So it sounds like choice 1? If you agree that choice 1 is correct we can move on, if not we can continue with the relativity discussion.
Why not?
In the following article it is stated:
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PatriciaKong.shtml
"Due to relativity, the speed of the Milky Way varies when compared with different objects in space."
So, we can estimate our velocity only by observing different objects in space.
Do we see any fixed reference in the space?
If we can't see any object around us, how could we know our real velocity in space?
Based on this article, only the observable objects in the space could give us an indication about our relative velocity at our current location.
So, if each rocket can only see a nearby rocket, than each one of them could think that its velocity is only 0.01c while as I have proved, the rocket 1000 is moving away from earth at 10c.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 15:47:03
In this case, do you agree that the relative velocities are as follow?No.
Erath to Rocket 1 = 0.01c
Rocket 1 to rocket 2 = 0.01c
Earth to rocket 2 = 0.02c.
Of course I don't agree.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 15:47:46
So, if each rocket can only see a nearby rocket, than each one of them could think that its velocity is only 0.01c while as I have proved, the rocket 1000 is moving away from earth at 10c.No matter how many times you say that, it is still wrong.
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 16:09:11
Why not?As I pointed out, a laser from earth pointed parallel to the rockets would go slower than the all the rockets after rocket 100. Do you disagree with that?
In the following article it is stated:Correct velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference.
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PatriciaKong.shtml
"Due to relativity, the speed of the Milky Way varies when compared with different objects in space."
So, we can estimate our velocity only by observing different objects in space.
Do we see any fixed reference in the space?No.
If we can't see any object around us, how could we know our real velocity in space?You cannot, it is not even worth asking what is our 'real' velocity.
So, if each rocket can only see a nearby rocket, than each one of them could think that its velocity is only 0.01c while as I have proved, the rocket 1000 is moving away from earth at 10c.What about the laser light that is moving along side the train of rockets? The rockets will exceed the speed of that laser light! That violates relativity. We can see billions of light years away so we could see all of the rockets from earth anyway (if the telescope was powerful enough).
So it is still looking like number 1 is your answer.
edit to add: I am not trying to do 'gotcha'. If you think relativity does not apply in this case, that is certainly an issue that needs to be hashed out at some point, but I have no problem saying ok and moving on. If you want to continue with the relativity discussion that is fine too.
Additional edit: Let's make a number 4,
4. It is not clear how relativity plays out in theory D, this will be more fully investigated at a later date.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 16:36:21
So it is still looking like number 1 is your answer.I don't think he feels that relativity is wrong.
I just don't think he understands what it means.
Anyway, if he's going to say that relativity is wrong, he's going to struggle.
It's probably the best tested idea in the whole of science.
It may be that's why he won't say he disagrees with it.
But the problem is, if it's correct (or even close), then his idea of an infinitely old universe fails.
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 16:56:05
I don't think he feels that relativity is wrong.I certainly don't disagree, I am just interested in discussing his idea to see where it leads.
I just don't think he understands what it means.
Anyway, if he's going to say that relativity is wrong, he's going to struggle.
It's probably the best tested idea in the whole of science.
It may be that's why he won't say he disagrees with it.
But the problem is, if it's correct (or even close), then his idea of an infinitely old universe fails.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 18:22:15
As I pointed out, a laser from earth pointed parallel to the rockets would go slower than the all the rockets after rocket 100. Do you disagree with that?Yes, that is correct
Correct velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference.Thanks
Thanks againQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:46:08You cannot, it is not even worth asking what is our 'real' velocity.
If we can't see any object around us, how could we know our real velocity in space?
What about the laser light that is moving along side the train of rockets? The rockets will exceed the speed of that laser light! That violates relativity.No. It doesn't.
We currently see that activity in our real Universe.
I have already offered an example for that.
You might think that I focus on BBT, But I want to highlight that even today we know that there are galaxies that are moving away from us a speed which is faster than the speed of light.QuoteQuote from: Bobolink on Today at 05:27:20I wanted to talk about your idea not the BBT. As you have said the BBT is wrong so there is no reason to bring it into the conversation.
However, our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2c
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Our scientists claim that the entire Universe should be quite bigger than this 94 BY
If we just assume that the entire universe is 130 BLY, than a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of 10c.
So, based on the current BBT theory you should know for sure that galaxies are already moving away from each other at a velocity which is much faster than the speed of light.
I assume that it was very clear also to Bored chemist.
However, if I understand him correctly, he claims that this speed of higher than the speed of light is due to expansion.
BBT explains it by saying that space expands.So, as long as galaxies are moving away from each other significantly faster than the speed of light due to the expansion than this is fully ok for Bored chemist.
You say space does not expand.
That's the difference.
Did you not realise that?
However, for me - as long as we all agree that galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed o light than this is good enough.
So back to your question:
What about the laser light that is moving along side the train of rockets? The rockets will exceed the speed of that laser light! That violates relativity. We can see billions of light years away so we could see all of the rockets from earth anyway (if the telescope was powerful enough).It is clear that at the far end of our visible universe there is a galaxy that is moving away at a speed that is almost the speed of light. We clearly see that galaxy.
So it is still looking like number 1 is your answer.
If we could stay at that far end galaxy we should clearly see many more galaxies that are located further away and moving away from this galaxy at ultra high velocity.
Therefore, it is clear that behind the furthest galaxy that we can still see, there are more galaxies that are moving away faster than the speed of light that we can't see.
So, if the relativity can accept the idea that galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light due to expansion, than relativity should except the idea that galaxies are moving away due to Rocket over rocket.
If you think about it, there is almost full similarity between the two ideas.
In the expansion any two nearby points are moving away from each other at a fixed velocity. We call it the expansion rate.
The Rocket over rocket works the same as the expansion.
Any two nearby rockets are moving away from each other at a fixed velocity. So the outcome is identical to the expansion.
Let me offer a better solution.
However, let's start by the following explanation about the expansion:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."
so, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
So, in one day the expansion rate is
75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
So, Let's assume the Universe is empty
I have unlimited no of rockets over rocket over...rocket.
So I start at a single point in this empty universe. Let's call it A.
I fire 6 rockets at the same moment to all directions (up/down/left right/inwards/outwards
Those rockets should move exactly at the expansion rate.
After one day we will fire 6 rockets from each of those first 6 rockets. So in total we will fire 6^2 = 36 rockets at the second day.
On the 10 day we will fire 6^10 rockets
At the 1000 days = 6^1000.. and so on.
So, if we will continue with this process for 13.8 BY we will get exactly the same impact as the expansion.
Therefore, as Bored chemist had accepted the idea of galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light due to the expansion, he also should accept the idea of moving faster than a speed of light due to the Rocket over rocket mechanism.
As the expansion doesn't violate the relativity, then also rocket over rocket doesn't violate.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 18:34:53
Therefore, as Bored chemist had accepted the idea of galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light due to the expansion, he also should accept the idea of moving faster than a speed of light due to the Rocket over rocket mechanism.That's just not true.
As the expansion doesn't violate the relativity, then also rocket over rocket doesn't violate.
And, no matter how many times you say it, it with still not be true.
The fabric of space times is not the same as a rocket.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 18:43:35
That's just not true.Simple question
And, no matter how many times you say it, it with still not be true.
Do you agree that in our current observable universe there are galaxies that are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light?
Please - yes or no
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 19:06:13
For the sake of discussion we can forego the issue of "from whose point of view".That's just not true.Simple question
And, no matter how many times you say it, it with still not be true.
Do you agree that in our current observable universe there are galaxies that are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light?
Please - yes or no
Yes, I think there are.
And they were got to that speed by an expansion of space time.
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 20:40:21
No. It doesn't.OK. How about this, your hypothesis agrees with the theory of relativity and in addition states that galaxies can move through space a superluminal speeds. Correct?
We currently see that activity in our real Universe.
I have already offered an example for that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 03:31:57
For the sake of discussion we can forego the issue of "from whose point of view".Wow
Yes, I think there are.
And they were got to that speed by an expansion of space time.
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
Many thanks for this great article
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
So we have a valid confirmation that far away galaxies are moving away 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."
They also claim that this activity doesn't violate the relativity due to the expansion theory:
"This sounds like it breaks Einstein’s theories, but it doesn’t. The galaxies themselves aren’t actually moving very quickly through space, it’s the space itself which is expanding away, and the galaxy is being carried along with it. As long as the galaxy doesn’t try to move quickly through space, no physical laws are broken."
OK. How about this, your hypothesis agrees with the theory of relativity and in addition states that galaxies can move through space a superluminal speeds. Correct?
We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.
Our scientists claim that this activity doesn't violate relativity due to the expansion.
So do you agree that now we need to discuss why rocket over rocket has the same impact as the expansion?
Post by: Bobolink on 23/04/2020 13:55:30
We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.It was never in doubt that the recession velocity of galaxy can exceed c, that has been known for decades.
Our scientists claim that this activity doesn't violate relativity due to the expansion.Correct, it does not violate relativity, that is taught in the introductory astronomy classes, even 35 years ago when I took one.
So do you agree that now we need to discuss why rocket over rocket has the same impact as the expansion?I had wanted to discuss your ideas not the BBT, but you really don't seem to.
I fear that this will be a waste of time, because you have not shown a much willingness to change your mind.
OK.
Galaxies move through space, like everything else in space. For instance the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way galaxy are moving through space towards each other at 130 km/sec. The speed that something can move through space is limited by the speed of light.
The universe is also expanding. That means that galaxies that are far apart are moving away from each other due the expansion, this is called recession velocity. Since this movement is not through space it is not limited to the speed of light.
Your idea of rockets shooting rockets means they move through space therefore no matter how many rockets you have you cannot travel at c.
What questions do you have?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 16:25:49
The universe is also expanding. That means that galaxies that are far apart are moving away from each other due the expansion, this is called recession velocity. Since this movement is not through space it is not limited to the speed of light.Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expanding
You 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.
Your idea of rockets shooting rockets means they move through space therefore no matter how many rockets you have you cannot travel at c.The space has no frame.
Therefore, we will never know what is our real velocity with reference to space.
We can just measure our velocity with reference to observable galaxies.
Hence, theoretically, if all the observable galaxies are moving together at one million c in the open space we will not be able to verify it.
I will try to prove that Rocket over rocket works identically as the expansion in place.
Let's look again in the following explanation about the expansion:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."
Therefore, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
In one day the expansion rate is 75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
1 Year = 365 days
In 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 km
We know that 1 Light Year = 9.4605E+12 Kilometers
We also know that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
Therefore, 3 Million LY means
9.4605 10^12 * 3 = 28.3815 10^12 km
So, 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 Years
Hence, 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 ly
Therefore, in every 12,000 years the volume of our space is increasing by 6^3/ 3^3 = 3^2 = 8
So, let's see the meaning of this expansion:
Based on this key information about the expansion in space, let's compare this theory to Rocket over rocket
Let's assume that we have only 6 galaxies in the Universe that are located exactly at the edges of a 3x3x3 LY cube
Those galaxies aren't moving in space and there are no other galaxies in all the infinite space
Each galaxy is just located at other side of the 3x3x3 ly Cube
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside.
They stay there without any movement.
Now we will try to verify the impact of space expansion Vs rocket over rocket.
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.
After 12,000 years the space cube of 3x3x3 will be increased to 6x6x6.
Therefore we will get the galaxies at the edge of that cube.
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside while each one of them is moving at 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.
Let's start the timer of the rocket over rocket:
The galaxy that is located upwards, should fire a new rocket/galaxy upwards at 75 kilometers/sec.
The galaxy that is located downwards, should fire a new rocket/galaxy downwards at 75 kilometers/sec.
The galaxy that is located at the lefts, should fire a new rocket/galaxy to the left at 75 kilometers/sec.
The galaxy that is located at the right, should fire a new rocket/galaxy to the right at 75 kilometers/sec.
And so on
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/sec
One 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.
Action 2
Space expansion:
After the next 12,000 years the space cube of 6x6x6 will be increased to 12x12x12 while the recession velocity of galaxy at each edge of the cube should be 75x2 = 150 Km/sec.
Therefore we will get the galaxies at the edge of that 12x12x12 cube.
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside while each one of them is moving at 150 kilometers/sec in its direction.
Rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:
Let's fire the next cycle of rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:
We already know that the galaxy that is located upwards is moving upwards at 75 Km/s. As it fires its new rocket/galaxy in the same direction of its movement - (upwards) , than this new rocket/galaxy should move now at 150 km/sec. (75+75 = 150)
Same issue with any galaxy at any side.
So, as the velocity of each new rocket/galaxy is twice the speed of 75 Km/sec, than after 12,000 years each one of them should cross exactly 6 LY
Therefore, after the next 12,000 years the new fired rockets will set a perfect cube of 12x12x12 LY (6+6 x 6+6 x 6+6) while their velocity is 150 Km/s (each one - in each direction)
This is also identical to space expansion.
I could go on and on and you will find that after any time frame of 12,000 years we get exactly the same impact as the space expansion.
Therefore, if space expansion is identical to rocket over rocket system, than their outcome should be identical.
As the expansion in space can set a recession velocity of galaxy that exceeds c, than the rocket over rocket can do it without any difficulties.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2020 17:11:38
Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expandingYes we do. Because the more distant galaxies are receding faster.
You need to recognise that, just because you don't know something doesn't mean it is unknown.
If your rocket was far enough away, it wouldn't need to use its engines to move away from us faster than light.
(75+75 = 150)VELOCITIES DO NOT ADD LIKE THAT.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I TELL YOU THAT PRETENDING THEY DO DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE?
Post by: Bobolink on 23/04/2020 18:07:39
Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expandingThis is counter to the BBT, General Relativity and others. You need evidence that refutes these ideas, your incredulity is not enough.
You 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.I'll assume your arithmetic is correct, but your concept is wrong. Each km increase in distance between the galaxies increases the recession velocity. In other words galaxies separated by 1 megaparsec have a recession velocity of 75 km/sec and galaxies separated by 2 megaparsecs have a recession velocity of 150 km/sec. You need to take that into account.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
In one day the expansion rate is 75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
1 Year = 365 days
In 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 km
We know that 1 Light Year = 9.4605E+12 Kilometers
We also know that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
Therefore, 3 Million LY means
9.4605 10^12 * 3 = 28.3815 10^12 km
So, 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 Years
Hence, 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 ly
Therefore, in every 12,000 years the volume of our space is increasing by 6^3/ 3^3 = 3^2 = 8
So, let's see the meaning of this expansion:
Action 1Oh boy, this is going to be difficult... I wish you would just ask questions..
Space expansion:I assume you mean 75 kilometer/sec/megaparsec. I also assume you mean 3x3x3 mega ly.
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.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 of 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 the 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.
Rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:There is no directions of expansion! If you blow up a balloon, what direction is it expanding??
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/secNo your analysis is wrong because you forgot to factor in the expansion of space! 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/sec 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.
One 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.
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.
Edit for clarity.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 20:20:52
This is counter to the BBT, General Relativity and others. You need evidence that refutes these ideas, your incredulity is not enough.Ok
The evidence is as follow:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"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.
So, our scientists have never ever set any sort of measurements with regards to the space.
They have only measured objects with reference to other objects in the space.
Therefore, the idea that there is an expansion in space could be as good as there is expansion in time.
I can't prove it or disprove it.
Our scientists are free to assume whatever they wish.
However, they can't just claim that they have measured the expansion in space as this is misleading information.
They have to highlight that they have only measured objects in space.
Those pulsating stars give indications only about the matter in the space and not about the space itself.
Therefore, the assumption that those pulsating stars are moving due to space expansion is just an assumption.
I assume you mean 75 kilometer/sec/megaparsec. I also assume you mean 3x3x3 mega ly.Yes, that is correct
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.Well, I have used the center of that 3x3x3x MLY as the reference point for the directions and velocities.
Just look at 2 galaxies to reduce the complexity!Yes, perfect idea
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??Based on theory D, new born BH are ejected in all directions. Did you know that our scientists have discovered more than 10,000 BH in the center of our galaxy? So those baby BH should be ejected outwards from the galaxy. It might take them some time to do so. by that time they might increase their mass and might host a dwarf galaxy.
Do you know that out of the 195 galaxies in our aria, about 100 are considered as satellites of the Milky Way and Andromeda.
So, first they are born near the SMBH. Then they are drifted all the way to the far end of the galaxy. at that time they are quite massive and considered as a satellites
The last phase is the final ejection. Out of the 190 galaxies, 90 galaxies have already ejected from their mater galaxy. Each one of them might move to a different location. There is good chance that they are drifting away at the expansion velocity of 75Km/s.
In any case, as there are so many babies, sooner or later at least one of them should move in the same direction as its matter galaxy.
Therefore, I have focused only on the one that is moving in that direction.
So, the baby/dwarf galaxies that are ejected from its mother' galaxy acts as a rocket that is fired from the galaxy.
Therefore, to make it short, let's just assume that every time one baby galaxy/rocket had been ejected/fired in the direction that we wish.
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.Yes, all of that is correct
In other words the rocket will be much farther from the galaxy than you calculated.As you have offered, let's focus only on two galaxies at 2D. So, if they are located at a distance of 3MLY from each other, then based on the expansion theory they should move away from each other at 75Km/s.
I think your big misconception is that you still think of galaxies as moving through space instead of space expanding .Yes, I think that galaxies are moving through space because that exactly the way that our scientists are measuring the expansion.
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.
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?Well, I'm quite sure about theory D. please try to understand how it works and let me know if you see any problems with this theory.
I am not going to look at the rest of the post until we can get the basics sorted out.Now we discuss about the idea that rocket over rocket syatem is almost identical to the expansion in space process.
Take your time and let me know if you have any question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2020 20:37:02
Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.What "frame".
Those stars are certainly in spacetime.
Where else could they be?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2020 20:38:19
So, our scientists have never ever set any sort of measurements with regards to the space.Yes they have.
Red shift, for a start.
Why do you keep making false claims about what science had done (or not done).
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2020 20:40:18
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.Well, traveling through space at more than C is impossible.
Travelling with expanding space at more than C is possible.
We see things travelling at more than C.
Post by: Bobolink on 23/04/2020 21:07:58
"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.Oh for crying out loud, the stars are called cepheid variables.
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.
What does "not connected to the space frame" mean?
Take your time and let me know if you have any question.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?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2020 08:34:03
Oh for crying out loud, the stars are called cepheid variables."Cepheid" By Google translate - "a variable star having a regular cycle of brightness with a frequency related to its luminosity, so allowing estimation of its distance from the earth."
What does "not connected to the space frame" mean?
So, this variable star is allowing estimation of its distance from the earth.
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:
Correct velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of 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?
Now add as many cepheid variables as you wish.
If we all are crossing the absolute frame of reference at 1c or 10c, would we notice it?
So, when our scientists have measured our relative velocity is space, they didn't claim for the absolute space frame of reference.
They just found our relative velocity with regards to the observable objects as those Cepheid variables.
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?
Sorry – don't you see that this statement is a misleading information?.
It is OK that our scientists think/assume that the space expansion could solve their problem.
However, how could they claim that they have really measured the space expansion as they clearly can't measure the 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?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 us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If 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 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This 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 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, 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/s
Now, 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?
Post by: Bobolink on 24/04/2020 12:58:52
However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?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.
Well at least you now have vague notion what a cepheid variable star is, so you accidentally learned a bit about astronomy.
Let's assume that we only see one Cepheid moving away from us at 0.5c.You really need to learn some basic physics. We can't have meaningful discussion if you are ignorant of the subject.
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?Your inability to understand these observations doesn't make them wrong, it must means you can't understand them.
Are you sure about it?Yes. It is obvious, are you really ignorant of that too?
Let's try to set a simple calculation:The explanation like most of physics appears to be over your head since your education is clearly confined to cruising the internet. The site where you found M90 would have explained it, but alas you did not understand. I am afraid I couldn't explain it to you with out using big words and slightly difficult concepts.
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If 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 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This 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 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, 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/s
Now, 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 suppose you should just continue to use your caricature of a theory to bolster your fantasy that you are a great astrophysicist.
Isn't pretending is fun! Not very rewarding, but I guess if it is all you have...
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2020 15:21:14
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.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.
In any case, I do appreciate your support so far and please feel free to ignore this thread.
You don't have to force yourself reading my explanation, especially if you don't like the subject.
However, just for the record l would like to offer one more example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921
NGC 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/sec
Surprizingly, 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.
I know that our scientists try to explain this unexpected observation by "Gravity"
That was the answer for the discovery of Andromeda in the direction of the milky way.
However, they ignore the real meaning of gravity. It isn't momentum.
Gravity can't just pull galaxies in a specific direction and keep them in a direct momentum.
This is a fantasy
If someone who has better appreciation to my knowledge will ask it, I will answer with pleasure.
In any case, with regards to the space expansion
Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLY
So, 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.
However, if I understand it correctly, our scientists don't see any reduction in the density of the Universe or any change in the CMB.
I also assume that they will never ever see any change in the density or the CMB even after trillion years from now.
Theory D is the only theory that gives perfect explanation for any observation in our Universe.
You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2020 17:19:10
However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?Did you read that through before you posted it?
You have already confirmed that:
Quote from: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 16:09:11
Correct velocity is relative. There is no absolute frame of reference.
Did you stop and think something like this?
I'm saying that this guy has confirmed that there is no absolute frame of reference.
and now I'm asking
" how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?"
I'm asking how how it is related to something which I know does not exist".
It's like asking if it's faster than a unicorn.
Why do you post stuff like that?
Do you enjoy getting laughed at?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2020 17:21:14
Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge,We are not talking about deep knowledge here.
We are talking about common sense.
If something does not exist, you can't measure your speed relative to it.
Post by: Bobolink on 24/04/2020 17:27:56
Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge, you didn't answer any question and totally ignored all the key issues.Yeah, sorry to let you down. The problem is that while your 'theory' is astonishingly bad, I thought it would be fun to discuss it with you but the way you stubbornly cling to your ignorance was to annoying.
This is a perfect strategy to anyone that has no answers.
However, it is quite frustrated as I had higher expectations from you.
Looking through your goofy ideas just leads to me thinking after each sentence, no, nope, wrong, wrong, absurd...
I mean not only is the science wrong the history is wrong!
Here is a couple examples:
To my best knowledge, Einstein had totally rejected the BBT.Not surprisingly, the best of your knowledge, falls well short of the mark.
He has also rejected his first idea for cosmological constant. He called it: the greatest blunder.The field equations of General Relativity resulted in a universe that was either expanding or contracting, he thought that must be wrong, so he put in a constant to make the universe static. When he saw the evidence that the universe was expanding he took out his 'blunder' from the field equations.
I don't know why you brought up Einstein anyway, you have already shown that you don't think relativity is correct. Of course you are so lost that you may not even know that you violate relativity.
So basically I once again am forced to reveal your ignorance
You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.I guess you're right, nothing will compel you to learn any science. Too bad, but it doesn't hurt me any. [shrug]
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2020 17:50:15
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.
But having someone here point out that you are just bewilderingly badly wrong, will let them know.
It would also help you; if you stopped being so pig headed and went off and learned stuff.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 03:56:30
Yes, it will help.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?
It will help other people who come here. They might not have the background to realise that you are passing of gibberish as science.
1.
Let's try to set a simple calculation:2.
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If 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 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This 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 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, 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/s
Now, 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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_49213.
NGC 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/sec
Surprizingly, 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 MLY
So, 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.
With regards to the CMB:
I'm still waiting for your answers about the CMB:
1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe
2. 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...
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 04:33:06
CMB
Let 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.html
When 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.
Conclusion
The 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 violation
Based 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, expansion
So, 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 Annihilation
Let'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#Examples
In 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 Decay
http://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...
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2020 11:50:55
With regards to the CMB:I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
I'm still waiting for your answers about the CMB:
Am I correct in that?
If so, please go and learn about spectroscopy.
Once you have the grounding I will be able to explain the answer to your question- in fact, I probably won't need to because you will work it out for yourself.
It's to do with selection rules.
The very simplistic answer is that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 13:36:00
assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of 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 issue 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.
However, as you like Einstein and you have offer his relativity, let me use his other formula:
E = mc^2
We all know that the Sun loses about 5.5 million tonnes of mass every second,
Try to calculate the energy in that mass.
Now, try to estimate how many stars there are just in our galaxy. Then add to that all the stars in the observable Universe.
Figure out the total energy that is needed for those stars to burn in just one second.
Now, try to estimate the total mass in out observable Universe. Add to that all the dark matter and dark energy.
Try to convert this mass into energy
So, what is the source of energy for the BBT?.
Our scientists are fully aware that electromagnetic field is needed in order to set even a tinny particle
Therefore, the assumption that a bang could generate particles or Atoms without magnetic field is a pure fiction.
After all of that you wish that this bang could also start in an aria without any space.
Sorry, a Universe without space can't be considered as a universe.
In any case, somehow that early Universe without space was very dense and hot.
So, how could it be so hot while it has no space?
If it had some space than how could we claim that the time was not ticking.
If it had time than there is no possibility to get an infinite energy....
What kind of energy could create a space?
How any sort of space could expand due to a bang?
If the bang had created some space in the Universe, than this space should create distortion in the early Universe.
Therefore, how can you claim that the Universe was homogenous and isotropic?
Without homogenous and isotropic you can set the BBT in the garbage of history.
The first transient of the bang should kill the Homogenous and isotropic and kills with it the BBT.
If there was a bang, then this bang should create singularity. The outcome is a BH.
So, all the energy in that Big Bang should collapse at the first moment into a black hole without any possibility for escaping.
If there was any sort of expansion in space or inflation, it would probably kill the possibility to form any star.
Therefore, the BBT contradicts almost any law of science.
If you wish to believe in this imagination - you are more than welcome.
The very simplistic answer is that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universeYou claim that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe as in your imagination you see a comact finite Universe.
Our Universe is Infinite. The CMBR perfectly meets our current infinite Universe.
It is actually a key indication that our Universe is infinite.
I have already deeply explained it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2020 14:24:27
So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D.
Yes, we did.
Reality contradicts this
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.
Also, you went on a rant about relativity.
I was asking about your understanding of spectroscopy.
You forgot to answer, so here's the question again.
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
Am I correct in that?
Post by: Bobolink on 25/04/2020 14:27:28
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?I have answered this before but I guess you didn't understand. There is proper motion and there is recession velocity (expansion). If there is proper motion towards us then the measured recession velocity will be lower by that amount. Hopefully you will understand this time.
1.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:34:03
Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If 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 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This 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 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, 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/s
Now, 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 15:21:14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921
NGC 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/sec
Surprizingly, 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.Really, we could see galaxies changing position or something? Let's see if that makes sense.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:21:14
Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLY
So, 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.
Assume a galaxy is 1 megaparsec away from us and not bound to us at all.
1 megaparsec is 3.1 x 10^19 km.
The expansion rate at that distance is 75 km/s. After 5 years the the expansion will have moved the galaxy 1.2 x 10^10 km.
So the galaxy was originally 3.1 x 10^19 km after 5 years it will be 3.1000000012 x 10^19 km. I don't think that would be easy to see.
1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe1. There is no mechanism in the current universe that would cause a smooth distribution of microwave radiation all at the same wavelength.
2. 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...
2. Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.
3. Where would it go? Thanks for the article that says light moves at the speed of light...
4. There is no source point. The inverse square law does not apply. I forget sometimes, how little you know about this subject.
5. Because the expansion of space has increased the wavelength of the original radiation.
6. What do walls have to do with anything?
I just have highlight what you wrote because it is SO wrong:
Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere.
Your ready comprehension is awful.
How do you explain the fact that you see BBR when the burner on you stove is red hot??
You are hopeless! Did it ever occur to you that you should learn a little bit about a subject before you try to make a hypothesis about that subject.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 15:39:50
Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.
There is no source point. The inverse square law does not apply.Yes there is. You claim that the Universe was dense and hot. So if you take the calculation from the moment of the Recombination, than you have to verify the volume (or distance) from that time.
The energy of the radiation must be directly connected to the Volume of the Universe and not just to its redshift value.
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
If the energy at the first sigment was 3,000K, than by increasing the Volume by 88M the density and temperature should fall to:
3,000 /88M = 0.000034 K
However, we clearly monitor 2.7K.
This by itself should kick down the BBT.
The red shift gives an indication for a distance.
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
Try to use it and see that even in this case the temp should fall down almost to zero.
The 2.7K is feasible ONLY for infinite Universe.
The Value of 1089 in the redshift indicates that the contribution of the energy in the CMB is coming mainly from a sphere of about 45 BLY.
We can't get significant energy from galaxies that are located too far away from that sphere. However, the impact of the infinite galaxies up to the infinity set the BBR.
If we could run a simulation for Infinite Universe based on the current density we should get exactly the same CMB that we see today
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2020 15:59:41
Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.Prove it.
Yes there is.What is it then?
Post by: Bobolink on 25/04/2020 17:04:58
Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.That of course is not based on evidence, it is based on your profound ignorance of astrophysics.
Yes there is. You claim that the Universe was dense and hot.Just to be clear these, are not my claims. These are the findings of physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists. I have looked at the evidence and it seems very compelling.
So if you take the calculation from the moment of the Recombination, than you have to verify the volume (or distance) from that time.Nope. The universe did not expand away from some point in space, every point in space expanded, there was no central point, so there was no mythical point source.
My bet is this concept is way over your head.
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.It is not surprising that you would make such an egregious error considering your your rudimentary understanding of cosmology.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
This by itself should kick down the BBT.Wrong.
The red shift gives an indication for a distance.Holy crap!! You said something correct!!!!
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.Now we are back to ignorance on display. No you are wrong again.
Try to use it and see that even in this case the temp should fall down almost to zero.This is just a series of ignorant statements.
The 2.7K is feasible ONLY for infinite Universe.
The Value of 1089 in the redshift indicates that the contribution of the energy in the CMB is coming mainly from a sphere of about 45 BLY.
We can't get significant energy from galaxies that are located too far away from that sphere. However, the impact of the infinite galaxies up to the infinity set the BBR.
If we could run a simulation for Infinite Universe based on the current density we should get exactly the same CMB that we see today
It is so embarrassing, it is like you are jumping up and down waving your arms and saying look how ignorant I am!!!
Let me assure you we can all see that just fine.....
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 19:38:32
The universe did not expand away from some point in space, every point in space expanded, there was no central point, so there was no mythical point source.Well, you have to take a decision
My bet is this concept is way over your head.
You can't just hold the stick in both sides..
You claim specifically that "every point in space expanded"
However, our scientists claim that there was no space before the bang, so how could you expand every point in space while the space is missing?
If you claim that there was space before the bang than this is a severe violation of the BBT starting point.
In any case, let's assume that there was space.
If there was a space and no central point, than any point in that space should be considered as a central point.
So, there are two options:
1. The space is infinite - In this case in order to fulfill the "no central point" the Space/universe must be infinite.
2. The space is finite and compact - In this case, there must be a central point - the compact/finite space itself in the infinite universe.
Actually there is a clear contradiction between finite universe to "no central point"
If you claim that our current Universe is finite, than if we go back in time we have to minimize its space. Therefore, at some point you have to get to a central point somewhere in the Universe.
If you still think that a finite Universe could have "no central point", than would you kindly explain it.
Just to be clear these, are not my claims. These are the findings of physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists. I have looked at the evidence and it seems very compelling.Sorry, we discuss science.
If you claim that the Universe today is finite, while you also claim that its space had been expanded dramatically in the last 13.8 BY, than somehow you have to start with a compact space/Universe.
You claim that:
Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.So, at the recombination time the universe was much compact than our time.
That compact universe/space has a volume. In that limited volume the whole mass/energy of the universe was concentrated at very high density. This density sets the temperature of the radiation/energy to 3000K.
You don't have to be physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists to understand that if you increase the volume you directly decrease the density. If you decrease the density you also decrease the temp radiation/energy proportionally.
I have found that every 1200 years the volume of the Universe is increasing by 8.
The outcome is direct decreasing in the density by 8 and therefore the temp must be dropped also by 8.
Our physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists can't just change the law of science according their wishful thinking.
Would you kindly show me on which law in physics they have based their calculation in order to extract the temp from the redshift?
Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?
Sorry - the temp must be a direct outcome of density or distance.
Any other calculation is a pure fiction even if it is made by very smart physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.
If you think that I have an error, than would you kindly set the calculation by yourself or find an article with the relevant calculation.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:39:50It is not surprising that you would make such an egregious error considering your rudimentary understanding of cosmology.
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
You can't just claim that the physics books/law are based on ignorance.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:39:50Now we are back to ignorance on display. No you are wrong again.
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
If you wish I can offer you those physics books /law of how to calculate the radiation/energy due to distance/volume.
You can't just claim that I'm wrong without backup yourself with a clear physics law.
Even those 100,000 physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists must base their calculations on physics law.
So please, show me the physics law of their unrealistic calculation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2020 20:59:24
If you think that I have an error, than would you kindly set the calculation by yourself or find an article with the relevant calculation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Relationship_to_the_Big_Bang
Did you not think you should read, at least the wiki page, about the BB and CMB before trying to tell everyone that it's wrong?
Post by: Bobolink on 25/04/2020 22:15:22
Well, you have to take a decisionI guess you did not notice that I believe that the BBT is the best theory to explain what we observe in the universe.
You can't just hold the stick in both sides..What are you talking about?
You claim specifically that "every point in space expanded"I don't know who 'your' scientist are, but the ones I know of do not know anything about what was before the big bang. Many would say asking what was before the big bang is a silly question.
However, our scientists claim that there was no space before the bang, so how could you expand every point in space while the space is missing?
In any case, let's assume that there was space.Seriously? Are you that clueless?? There is a 3rd possibility, you know the BBT. That is the one I think is right, good old number 3. See the BBT (that thing you know all about and disagree with) clearly says that every point in space is expanding and there is no center to the universe.
If there was a space and no central point, than any point in that space should be considered as a central point.
So, there are two options:
1. The space is infinite - In this case in order to fulfill the "no central point" the Space/universe must be infinite.
2. The space is finite and compact - In this case, there must be a central point - the compact/finite space itself in the infinite universe.
Actually there is a clear contradiction between finite universe to "no central point"Actually there isn't. It really isn't that hard, the universe isn't expanding into anything and every point in space is expanding. Look up the big bang on wiki if you would like to learn about that thing you don't like.
So, at the recombination time the universe was much compact than our time.Very good that is correct.
That compact universe/space has a volume.Two correct statements in a row, you are on a roll.
You don't have to be physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists to understand that if you increase the volume you directly decrease the density. If you decrease the density you also decrease the temp radiation/energy proportionally.You are knocking it out of the park this is all correct!
Well this is fun but I gotta go grab dinner. This has been quite humorous, I will be back.
Edit: misread the a part and edited my answer.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/04/2020 23:04:46
You are hopeless!
As I know all too well. He had a prior thread called "How gravity works in spiral galaxy?" where he and I discussed this exact same "theory" of his from last March to last December. I made absolutely no progress towards teaching him the error of his ways. If you plan on sticking this out, you're in it for a long haul.
Post by: Bobolink on 26/04/2020 00:17:59
There is no way I'm in it for the long haul, I find his combination of ignorance and arrogance very frustrating. But I will play along for a while longer. :)You are hopeless!
As I know all too well. He had a prior thread called "How gravity works in spiral galaxy?" where he and I discussed this exact same "theory" of his from last March to last December. I made absolutely no progress towards teaching him the error of his ways. If you plan on sticking this out, you're in it for a long haul.
Post by: Bobolink on 26/04/2020 02:26:27
I have found that every 1200 years the volume of the Universe is increasing by 8.As I have said that is based on the simple minded belief that the expansion rate is constant - it isn't. That was some really swell arithmetic but the math will be a bit more complicated to give a meaningful answer.
Our physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists can't just change the law of science according their wishful thinking.Always keep in mind that your inability to understand a concept does not mean the concept is wrong it only means you cannot understand it.
Would you kindly show me on which law in physics they have based their calculation in order to extract the temp from the redshift?That makes no sense, a redshift can't have a temperature. I think you mean CMB not redshift. The temperature is found by the wavelength of the radiation. The wavelength corresponds to the black body radiation from a 2.73 K body. Easy!
Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift? What in the hell would that tell you?
Sorry - the temp must be a direct outcome of density or distance.What temperature? The CMB black body temperature? No, distance or density isn't what made the BBR of the universe go from 3000 K to 2.73 K. I will let you in on a secret it was expansion. Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K.
Any other calculation is a pure fiction even if it is made by very smart physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.
You can't just claim that the physics books/law are based on ignorance.No the books are fine it is your ignorance of what they say is the problem.
If you wish I can offer you those physics books /law of how to calculate the radiation/energy due to distance/volume.No need to, I have done the calculations. You cannot even understand what they are talking about let alone do the calculations!
You can't just claim that I'm wrong without backup yourself with a clear physics law.OK, why would I call you ignorant when you said this:
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
The reason that statement is ignorant is because the inverse square law has nothing to do with red shift! The inverse square law tells you how the intensity of light from a point source will decrease with distance, it tells you nothing about the red shift.
Even those 100,000 physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists must base their calculations on physics law.I told you earlier that the wavelength of the CMB was measured and it corresponded to 2.73 K. Did you also know as early as 1948, that based on the BBT, there should be a microwave radiation found from when the universe became transparent. In 1965 these microwaves (CMB) were discovered just as the BBT had predicted. Pretty cool, huh?
So please, show me the physics law of their unrealistic calculation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/04/2020 04:05:30
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:38:32What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift? What in the hell would that tell you?
Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?
Good Morning!!!
Didn't you have a chance to read the explanation at wiki?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.26 eV,[50] which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen.[51]
Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1100[52] due to the expansion of the universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, causing them to decrease in energy. The temperature of this radiation stays inversely proportional to a parameter that describes the relative expansion of the universe over time, known as the scale length. The temperature Tr of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.2348 meV):[53]"
So
T (during recombination time) /Redshift =
3000K/1089 = 2.7548K
I fully agree with you:
What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift?The person/scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists that did it must be crazy.
This isn't science.
It is a science fiction.
The BBT is based on imaginary Physics law that had been specifically developed for that theory.
Therefore, if you use imaginary physics law, then you can fly without wings and also believe in the imagination that is called BBT.
In that imagination everything is possible
You can have Universe without space or space without universe.
You can have a dense and high temp without Universe or space
You can hold the time if you wish.
You can get for free infinite energy at a brief of a moment
You can set a bang with "no central point" without any need for space or universe.
You can convert that imagination energy into real particles atoms and even stars and galaxies without any need for electromagnetic.
You can get dark matter wherever is needed and at any requested complex density to hold your spiral galaxy in place.
You can also get unlimited dark energy to boost the far away galaxies.
No need for any physics books /law. They will make the calculation for you - "No need to, I have done the calculations."
You can also get free of charge an expansion in space - "Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K"
Unfortunately, you didn't ask for expansion in time, therefore we can't deliver this feature for you at this moment.
However, if you dare to criticize that wonderful BBT imagination than - "it is your ignorance of what they say is the problem"
So all you need is to believe in the BBT
So simple request.
Sorry to destroy your wonderful dream/imagination.
However, it's a time to walk up. You can't sleep for more than 70 years. It's already noon time. Please walk up.
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/04/2020 06:19:34
No one really appreciate my message. No one pays my celery for the time that I invest in this issue.
On the contrary, you all highlight my Poor knowledge and ignorant.
So why do I need to walk you up from your wonderful dream.
Look at those people who dare to raise their voices against the mainstream
Darwin had been totally neglected from its society.
Galileo had been set in prison for claiming that we are not the center of the Universe.
Just think about it - how could he dare for that claim? Shame on him!!!
So, why they have both decided to go against the main stream at their time and totally be ejected from their society.
I wonder if I need to continue or just let you continue with your wonderful dream.
However, if one day you would walk up and look for the ultimate theory for our universe, than please read again this thread.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/04/2020 06:31:16
Look at those people who dare to raise their voices against the mainstream
Darwin had been totally neglected from its society.
Galileo had been set in prison for claiming that we are not the center of the Universe.
Just think about it - how could he dare for that claim? Shame on him!!!
So, why they have both decided to go against the main stream at their time and totally be ejected from their society.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/04/2020 09:13:19
You can have Universe without space or space without universe.Nobody said you could.
You can have a dense and high temp without Universe or space
You can hold the time if you wish.
You can get for free infinite energy at a brief of a moment
You can set a bang with "no central point" without any need for space or universe.
You can convert that imagination energy into real particles atoms and even stars and galaxies without any need for electromagnetic.
You can get dark matter wherever is needed and at any requested complex density to hold your spiral galaxy in place.
You can also get unlimited dark energy to boost the far away galaxies.
No need for any physics books /law. They will make the calculation for you - "No need to, I have done the calculations."
You can also get free of charge an expansion in space - "Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K"
Either that's a poorly constructed strawman attack or it's time you actually read the science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/04/2020 09:14:41
No one really appreciate my message.Try sending a message which is not obviously wrong.
Post by: Bobolink on 26/04/2020 12:56:12
T (during recombination time) /Redshift =Where did you get this from: redshift = 1089?
3000K/1089 = 2.7548K
Edit to add: I see it is 'z'.
Z= (wavelength[now]-wavelength[org])/wavelength[org]
I was wrong on this point.
Post by: Halc on 26/04/2020 13:38:09
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.Another random number pulled out of your arse it seems. Off by 7 orders of magnitude if based on actual empirical measurements.
Quote
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 yearsThe math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 811,000,000, not 8 * 11M.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/04/2020 14:19:00
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 15:39:50Another random number pulled out of your arse it seems. Off by 7 orders of magnitude if based on actual empirical measurements.
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
Thanks Halc
It should be 12,000 Y instead of 1200 Y
Please see the following calculation:
Let's look again in the following explanation about the expansion:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."
Therefore, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
In one day the expansion rate is 75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
1 Year = 365 days
In 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 km
We know that 1 Light Year = 9.4605E+12 Kilometers
We also know that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
Therefore, 3 Million LY means
9.4605 10^12 * 3 = 28.3815 10^12 km
So, 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 Years
Hence, 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 ly
Therefore, in every 12,000 years the volume of our space is increasing by 6^3/ 3^3 = 3^2 = 8
So, let's see the meaning of this expansion:
QuoteQuoteThe math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 8^11,000,000, not 8 * 11M.
Thanks again
You are absolutely correct with regards to Volume of a cube.
Let's verify a Cube:
First expansion - 3x3x3 is expanding to 6x6x6 which means 6^3 /3^3 = 2^3 = 8^1 times 3x3x3 Ly
Second expansion is: 6x6x6 is expanding to 12x12x12 which means 12^3 /3^3 = 4^3 = 64 = 8^2 times 3x3x3 Ly
Third expansion is : 12x12x12 is expanding to 24x24x24 which means 24^3 / 3^3 =8^3 times 3x3x3 Ly
Expansion No. 4 is: 48x48x48 which means 48^3 / 3^3 = 16^3 = 8^4 times 3x3x3 Ly
So, the formula is: 8^n
As n = 11,000,000
Therefore if we start from a cube of 3x3x3 Ly the minimal size of the Volume after 11,00,000 should be
8^11,000,000 multiply by 3x3x3 LY
However, if we discuss on a direct line (or radius) than:
3 Ly Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3Ly
6 Ly increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3Ly
12 Ly increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3Ly
So the formula for the radius is
3LY * 2^n
If n = 11,000,000, The radius is 3 * 2^11,000,000 Ly =
If you try to run that number you get Infinity.
Let's verify what is the value n in order to set a Universe with a radius of 15 BLY
3 * 2^n LY = 15BLY = 15 * 10^9 Y
2^n = 5 10^9
If n = 32
2^32 = 4.2949673×10^9
Therefore, after only 32 times we already get a radius of almost 13BLY, while after 33 times the radius of the Universe is already: 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.
Hence, based on the expansion rate of the BBT, after only 12,000 x 33 = 396,000 years, a radius of 3Ly should be expanded to 25.74 BLy.
That proves that something must be wrong.
If my calculation is correct, than there must be an error in the BBT.
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 03:32:31
That proves that something must be wrong.Clearly.
If my calculation is correct, than there must be an error in the BBT.Then obviously your calculation is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 05:32:09
Then obviously your calculation is wrong.Are you sure about it?
Did you ever tried to understand the real meaning of the expansion rate?
So, please, would you kindly show where is the error in my calculation?
Let's start with the following explanation:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."
So, I hope that we all agree that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years?
If so,
1 Year = 31556926 Seconds?
Therefore, 75Km/sec = 31556926* 75 = 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 2.366 * 10 ^9 km/year
One light year by wiki: "The light-year is a unit of length used to express astronomical distances and measures about 9.46 trillion kilometers (9.46 x 10^12 km)"
So do you agree that 3Ly = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^12 Km?
How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3LY?
28.38 * 10^12 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11,991 years
Let's assume that 11,991 years is almost 12,000 Years.
As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than do you agree that every 12,000 years each segment of 3LY is actually double its size?
Therefore, the formula for the radius should be as follow"
After the first 12,000 years interval time, the first 3 Ly Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3Ly
After the second 12,000 years interval time, a distance of 6 Ly increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3Ly
After the third 12,000 years interval time, a distance of 12 Ly increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3Ly
..
After the n times 12,000 years interval time, a distance of 3*2^(n-1) increases to 3*2^n Ly
Therefore, do you agree that if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe was only 3LY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n Ly
The formula for the time is: T (n) = n x 12,000 Years.
After n =33
Radius (n=33) = 3 * 2^n Ly = 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.
T (time after n=33) = 12,000 * 33 = 396,000 Years
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2020 06:22:55
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 08:40:36
Out of curiosity, Dave, if you had ten actual physicists (you know, people whose job it is to know this kind of stuff) tell you that your understanding of concepts like conservation of energy, universal expansion and the theory of relativity was all flawed, would you actually believe them or would you think that those ten physicists are deluded while you were the correct one? Would it even so much as give you pause and make you reconsider your understanding? If it was one hundred different physicists from around the world saying it, would it make any difference to you?Thanks for this question
I have high appreciation for any person, scientist, physicist, astronomer or astrophysicist.
However, you can't just replace real science by believing.
Let me answer by another question:
If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?
My boss used to say, the proof is in the pudding.
Therefore, anyone who believes in science must set his own calculation and verify if we should accept the "main stream".
How can we follow in the path that our scientists have drawn while we clearly see that they are so puzzled on almost every new discovery?
In engineering there is no room for puzzled theory.
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.
However, it seems that when it comes to astronomy, the sky is the limit.
Why do we need to except any sort of theory just because 100,000 astronomers support it?
Sorry, I don't see myself as part of the herd.
Do you know that the Norwegian lemmings are not so stupid.
However, when overcrowding becomes an issue, they will run for the sea and throwing themselves off cliffs.
So, I don't see myself as part of those Norwegian lemmings herd.
If I was a Norwegian lemming, and see that over than 100,000 clever Norwegian lemmings are running for the sea I will surely not join them.
So, if you all think that you should join the 100,000 herd, than it's your choice.
For me - I would base any theory ONLY on real physics law and observations.
On the first contradiction, I will set that theory at the garbage and start from zero.
The BBT had been set about 70 years ago. From that moment our scientists do whatever it takes to keep it alive. I'm quite sure that during those 70 years many young scientists have wondered if the BBT is real.
However, they know for sure that it is forbidden to go against the BBT. One negative word and they will be ejected out from this elite community and out of job.
I'm so happy that our engineering community do not share the same concept as our astronomers elite community.
70 years ago, a clever engineer came with an idea of the first transistor at Bell laboratory.
We are so lucky that our engineering community at that time didn't eject this young engineer from the community.
Based on his breakthrough idea, we have today the most high tech instruments.
Therefore, it is clear to me that if our science community were more open for new ideas/theory than they would surly found by now the correct explanation for our Universe.
However, as they do whatever it takes to eliminate any objection to the BBT, we are still located at the darkness.
At some point they would surly understand that the BBT is useless. So, how long arewe all going to stay in the darkness?
Look at yourself.
I personally have the highest appreciation for your knowledge and wisdom.
However, you are using all of this knowledge to protect the BBT.
You have never stopped for just one moment and ask yourself: could it be that there is an error in this theory?
Why is it?
Even if you don't like theory D, why don't you accept the key problematic issues in the BBT?
I have offered so many issues with the BBT. Why can't you see all the big holes in this theory?
What is your advice with regards to the expansion rate calculation which I have just offered?
Why do I need to set the walk up call for all of you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 09:02:33
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.Yes.
But you have not found a contradiction.
You have just misunderstood the underlying physics.
It does not help that you are sticking to a claim which is known to be false.
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.
You don't seem to have noticed the problems there.
One is about the size and age of the universe- which you are wrong about.
The other is this:
You say "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
Well, it isn't actually an indication of the size of the universe.
If we were in a very big box the walls of which were at about 2.7K we would see the same radiation in a finite universe.
So you start your post with a a blatant flaw in logic.
You then compound that
"Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age"
Well, that's not a logical conclusion either.
So you start off by announcing loudly that you can not do simple logic.
That's not going to convince us that your post is worth reading, is it?
And I'm still waiting for you to answer this
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
Am I correct in that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 10:30:49
Yes I have found many of them.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:40:36Yes.
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.
But you have not found a contradiction.
Let's start with the expansion rate. Would you try to answer the following contradiction?
Therefore, do you agree that if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe was only 3LY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n Ly
The formula for the time is: T (n) = n x 12,000 Years.
After n =33
Radius (n=33) = 3 * 2^n Ly = 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.
T (time after n=33) = 12,000 * 33 = 396,000 Years
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?
You have just misunderstood the underlying physics.If you assume that there is an error in my calculation, than please highlight this error.
You say "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."Yes it is.
Well, it isn't actually an indication of the size of the universe.
I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation.
I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR.
In order to understand that, you have to understand how BBR really works
If we were in a very big box the walls of which were at about 2.7K we would see the same radiation in a finite universeIf our Universe had isolated walls all around it, than it could carry a BBR even if it was finite.
However, in this case, its temp should be much higher than just 2.7K.
A box with isolated walls is an oven. A big box could set a very big oven. Try to set the sun in a very big oven and see the outcome.
Therefore, our universe can't be considered as a finite Universe with isolated walls or opaque.
The redshift in the CMB (which indicates a distance of 46BLY) is one more evidence for the minimal size of our universe.
And I'm still waiting for you to answer thisWell I have already answered.
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity
Am I correct in that?
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 12:23:38
Yes it is.
I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation.
I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR.
In order to understand that, you have to understand how BBR really works
"I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation."
Even if that's correct, it isn't relevant.
The thing you said
"Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
was wrong.
Why do you think it is helpful to say that sort of thing.
I provided a reasonable counter example.
Either explain how a box with 2.7K walls would not look like the CMBR or accept that the CMBR does not prove that the universe is infinite.
Also accept that, because it doesn't; You are wrong.
That's all there is to it here.
You keep on saying stuff even after it has been demonstrated that you are factually incorrect.
"I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR."
Should I take that as an answer to my question about your understanding of spectroscopy?
It also leads me to wonder if you think teh BB was actually a bang.
Do you understand that the term was originally intended as an insult?
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 13:46:11
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?Of course not. How could 2 objects that have a recession velocity of 7.5 x 10^-5 km/s move apart 26 Bly in only 390,000 years?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 13:59:37
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:32:09Of course not. How could 2 objects that have a recession velocity of 7.5 x 10^-5 km/s move apart 26 Bly in only 390,000 years?
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?
Well, if you believe in the BBT and you also confirm that the expansion rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than this MUST be the outcome.
So, the answer is located in the 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
Each segment of 3 million light years, contributes 75Km/sec.
Actually it was a big surprise also for me.
So many thanks to Hlac for his clarification:
The math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.In any case, if you still disagree with my calculation or Halc clarification, than please try to set the calculation by yourself and get the same results.
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 8^11,000,000, not 8 * 11M.
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 15:44:06
Well, if you believe in the BBT and you also confirm that the expansion rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than this MUST be the outcome.I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years". That means the following:
So, the answer is located in the 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
Each segment of 3 million light years, contribute 75Km/sec.
H = 74 km/s/Mparsec. Expansion rate at 3 ly = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
Therefore your statement, "after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?", is obviously wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2020 16:33:49
If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?
You are misunderstanding my question. I'm not talking about physicists telling you that the Big Bang theory is correct. I'm talking about them telling you that your understanding of several basic physics concepts are flawed. That conservation of energy doesn't work the way you claim it does, for example.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 17:04:58
I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years". That means the following:Thanks
H = 74 km/s/Mparsec.
Yes, that is correct.
That means the following:Well, I'm not sure what do you mean by this calculation.
Expansion rate at 3 ly = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
Let's look again on the following expansion rate of 74 km/s/Mparsec
My understanding is that if there are two galaxies at a distance of one Mparsec from each other, (and they are not moving in space) than due to the expansion in space, they will move away from each other at (or relative velocity) 74 Km/s.
If the galaxies are located at one LY away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:
74km/s / 3 Ly = 24.666 Km/sec./ one Ly
If the galaxies are located only one Km away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:
26.666Km/sec / 9.46 x 10^12 km = 2.818 10^-12 Km/sec/one Km.
So, can you please explain what do you mean by:
Expansion rate at 3 ly = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 17:33:13
A Mparsec is about 3 million light years.
74 km/s/Mparsec is about 74 km/sec per 3 million light years
or about 25 km/s per million light year
or about 25m/s per thousand light years
or about 25mm/ second per light year
That's about the width of the word "dimwit" per second per light year.
If the galaxies are located at one LY away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:About a million fold wrong.
74km/s / 3 Ly = 24.666 Km/sec./ one Ly
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 17:35:29
If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?The first thing I would do would be check the units.
1 cubit +1 cubit is about three feet.
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 18:10:12
So, can you please explain what do you mean by:I hope you realize 1,000,000 parsecs does not equal 1 parsec.
Expansion rate at 3 ly = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec
So 74 km/sec/Mparsec does not equal 74 km/sec/parsec.
Get it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 19:31:27
I hope you realize 1,000,000 parsecs does not equal 1 parsec.Thanks
So 74 km/sec/Mparsec does not equal 74 km/sec/parsec.
Get it?
Yes, the error is clear to me.
So let me update the calculation
One light year by wiki: "The light-year is a unit of length used to express astronomical distances and measures about 9.46 trillion kilometers (9.46 x 10^12 km)"
3Ly = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^12 Km
3MLy = 3* 10^6 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^18 Km
1 Year = 31556926 Seconds?
Therefore, 75Km/sec = 31556926* 75 = 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 2.366 * 10 ^9 km/year
One light year = 9.46 x 10^12 km
So 3MLy = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km * 10^6 = 28.38 * 10^18 Km
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 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.
As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.
Therefore, the formula for the radius should be as follow"
After the first 12 *10^9 years interval time, the first 3 MLy Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3MLy
After the second 12 *10^9 years interval time, a distance of 6 MLy increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3MLy
After the third 12 *10^9 years interval time, a distance of 12 MLy increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3MLy
..
After the n times 12 *10^9 years interval time, a distance of 3*2^(n-1) MLY increases to 3*2^n MLy
Therefore if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe is only 3MLY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n MLy
The formula for the time is: T (n) = n x 12 10^9 Years.
After n =12
Radius (n=12) = 3 * 2^n MLy = 3*4096 Mly = 12.228 Billion LY.
T (time after n=12) = 12 * 12 * 10^9 = 144 BY
So, if the radius of the whole Universe is 3MLY, than 144 By are needed to set a radius of 12.228BLY.
Now we get a different problem.
I hope that this time my calculation is correct.
Please verify and advice
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 20:10:12
I hope that this time my calculation is correct.You hoped the last one was.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2020 20:31:33
You are misunderstanding my question. I'm not talking about physicists telling you that the Big Bang theory is correct. I'm talking about them telling you that your understanding of several basic physics concepts are flawed. That conservation of energy doesn't work the way you claim it does, for example.
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 21:03:59
As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.Nope, that's wrong too. Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.
Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s. The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec. See the problem with your calculation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 21:32:03
Thanks for that clarification.As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.Nope, that's wrong too. Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.
Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s. The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec. See the problem with your calculation?
I wonder what happens if we continue the series
6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.
12 million About 300 KM/S
12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.
What a weird coincidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2020 03:28:56
Well?One moment please. I need to understand the issue with this expansion rate calculation.
Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s. The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec. See the problem with your calculation?Yes. Those are the numbers that I'm using in my calculations (or almost 75 instead of 74, and 150 instead of 148..)
Nope, that's wrong too. Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.No, I'm not going to give up on the math.
"Hand waving" is an action for believers. I'm not there yet.
As you claim that I have an error in my calculation, than would you kindly set it by yourself?
This calculation is very important as I see a contradiction in the BBT.
In one hand our scientists claim that due to this expansion rate, we get a minimal observable Universe radius of 46BLY, while on the other hand in the following article it is stated that it should take 3 trillion years to clear the sky from galaxies:
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
"One sad side effect of this expansion is that most of the galaxies will have receded over this horizon in about 3 trillion years"
So, I would like to verify this contradiction by real calculation.
Therefore, I insist to calculate the real impact of the expansion rate.
So, let me ask the following:
Let's assume that we could go back in time to the moment that the radius of the whole Universe was only of 3MLY.
How long it should take the expansion from this moment to increase the radius to 13 Bly?
Please use the expansion rate to prove your understanding by calculation.
Thanks for that clarification.There is no coincidence.
I wonder what happens if we continue the series
6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.
12 million About 300 KM/S
12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.
What a weird coincidence.
I assume that our scientists have based the expansion rate exactly on this assumption.
So, those scientists that set the expansion rate didn't try to understand the impact on time.
As you accept the "hand waiving" than it should be Ok for all of you.
However, some other scientists have set the calculation.
Their Math outcome is very clear -
"One sad side effect of this expansion is that most of the galaxies will have receded over this horizon in about 3 trillion years"
Hence, there must be a contradiction in the time.
How could it be that one scientists group (that set the expansion rate) claim that due to this expansion rate we can push a galaxy from 3MLY to a distance of over than 46 BLY in just 13 BY, while other scientists group claim that in order to do less than that (Push a galaxy from 3MLY to a distance of 13 BLY) we actually need over than 3 trillion years or 3,000BY?
Don't you see the contradiction?
Therefore, I insist to calculate the time.
Post by: Bobolink on 30/04/2020 05:15:31
https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm (https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm)
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2020 06:16:52
Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.
https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm (https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm)
In 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.
At that time its recession velocity was only 72 Km/s due to Ho
H = 72 km/s/Mpc
So, 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
How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?Therefore, that simple calculation doesn't represent the reality of space expansion.
28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.
How could they make such a sever mistake?
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/04/2020 08:33:05
Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.
https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm (https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm)
In 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.
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.
We can never know where the galaxies are 'now'. The information hasn't reached us yet. Science works on a principle called observation. Maybe someday you will read about it and be amazed. It will be your lightbulb moment. Or maybe all your switched have tripped. That could explain why you keep typing nonsense onto a science forum.
Quote
At that time its recession velocity was only 72 Km/s due to Ho
H = 72 km/s/Mpc
So, 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 3MLyHow many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?Therefore, that simple calculation doesn't represent the reality of space expansion.
28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.
How could they make such a sever mistake?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 08:54:05
I assume that our scientists have based the expansion rate exactly on this assumption.Then you are an idiot.
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
It's now clear that you are making judgements, not on the basis on the facts, but on what you want to believe.
You have abandoned science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2020 17:42:42
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.You are missing the key point in my message.
Doesn't this tell you something? Maybe over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
If over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating, than as we go back on time the velocity must go down.
Therefore, at the early stage of our universe, after the Big bang, most of the galaxies/matter were located nearby. So, a galaxy that is located today at the far end of the Universe (13BLY away) could be located at the early time at a distance of only 3MLY away from us.
Due to the expansion rate at that early time, this galaxy was probably moving away from us at only 75 Km/sec.
So, if you agree with this explanation, than you also have to understand that at this rate, it should take it about 12 BY just to cross the first 3MLY.
Therefore, a galaxy that we see/observe today at a distance of 13BLY, can't get there in only 13.8 BY.
Much longer time is needed.
So, this by itself should kill the BBT.
If you wish to contredict this understanding, than it is your obligation to show the math for the time interval that is needed from starting velocity of 75Km/s (at a distance of 3ML) till the speed of light (at 13BLY).
I'm not going to accept any sort of hand waving.
Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.Only real math please.
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.htmlIn this articale it is stated:
"The new measurement doesn't just tell scientists how fast the universe is expanding, but helps shed light on the mystery of why this expansion is accelerating. Dark energy is the name given to whatever is causing the universe's expansion to speed up. Yet scientists have little idea what it is. "
"This is a huge puzzle," Freedman said
How long are we going to read about "puzzled scientists" that "have little idea what it is"?
It is clear that those scientists don't have a clue how our universe really works.
As long as they keep the BBT, they will surly observe more and more contradictions to this irrelevant theory.
Then you are an idiot.Shame on you.
Do you really think that this negative approach will help you to reject my message?
Actually, It is clear indication that you can't contradict the idea that in 13BY there is no way to set a galaxy at 13BLY away.
If you could prove it, you would surly show you calculation.
It is pathetic. How miserable you are
It's time for you to apologize..
Without it, I have no intention to read your messages any more.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 18:25:19
It's time for you to apologize..I apologize for pointing out that you seem to be an idiot who didn't understand that, having pointed out how the expansion of the universe is calculated, then claimed that it was calculated differently.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 18:27:46
Without it, I have no intention to read your messages any more.Brought to you by the "Na naa nnaa. I'm not listening" school of scientific debate.
Did you somehow think that made you look better?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 18:30:20
If you could prove it, you would surly show you calculation.I pointed out where you had already posted that someone had done the 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
And I also did point it out, in the first place by calculation.
I wonder what happens if we continue the series
6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.
12 million About 300 KM/S
12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.
What a weird coincidence.
If you don't want to get called an idiot, don't act like one.
Post by: Bobolink on 30/04/2020 19:57:31
If over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating, than as we go back on time the velocity must go down.You really do not have a clue what you are talking about. It amazes me that you could have so little knowledge of basic astronomy. Usually you cranks have at least some basic knowledge of the subject before you make up your hair brain conjectures. None of you can do math but at least most you guys have a wiki level understanding. Except you don't even have that.
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.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/05/2020 05:31:39
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.Well, I clearly know that theory.
However, this kind of explanation is just a "hand waiving".
We discuss science.
Please show the math for the size of our universe.
I have tried to understand the size of the Universe after the inflation.
I have found that it was in a size of 1/10 of our galaxy:
"It is very difficult to quantify the size of the observable universe after inflation ended. We do not know how 'big' it was when inflation started, how rapidly it doubled in size ['inflated'], or how long the inflationary period persisted. Estimates of size after inflation vary wildly. Alan Guth guestimated it was around the size of a marble. Lineweaver estimates the universe grew by a factor of ~10E30 during inflation - re: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305179v1. By that standard, if you assume the observable universe was a planck length prior to inflation, you end up with a size of about 1.6E-05 meters after inflation. If you assume it was the size of a proton, you get a universe of about 1.6E15 meters, or around 1/10 the size of our galaxy.
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/comparable-size-of-the-observable-universe-immediately-after-inflation.731775/"
Please remember that the expansion rate is about 75Km/sec/3MLY.
You have stated that Expansion rate at 3 ly = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec:
I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years". That means the following:After the inflation, the size of the Universe was in the size of 1/10 of our galaxy.
H = 74 km/s/Mparsec. Expansion rate at 3 ly = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
Therefore, we should calculate the expansion rate for 1/10 galaxy.
If the Milky way is 100,000LY, than 1/10 is 10,000Ly or 10^4 Ly.
Therefore, the expansion rate is:
75 x 10^-6 km/s *10^4 /3 * 10^6 = 2.5 10^-8 Km/s = 2.5 10^-3 cm/s per 10,000 Ly.
If you think that the expansion rate was different, than please introduce the no. for each time interval.
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2020 08:55:12
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.
So
Can 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.
Post by: Bobolink on 01/05/2020 13:18:19
Well, I clearly know that theory.Dave, you are ignorant of the BBT and science in general. Your 'theory' D is tripe. You haven't discussed science. All you do is try twist scientific ideas and try to fit them into your silly rambling 'theory'. You will never acknowledge that you're ideas are wrong and silly because they make perfect sense to you. What you don't realize is that your 'theory' makes sense to you because it is based on your very limited knowledge.
However, this kind of explanation is just a "hand waiving".
We discuss science.
For crying out loud, your goofy idea violates relativity, with no explanation of how that could possibly happen. You and thousands of others like you have these silly 'super theories' that are based on misconceptions and ignorance. All of you bask in the fantasy that you are smarter than all the great minds of science.
I know there is nothing; no evidence, no math and no experiment that would cause you to admit you are wrong, because that would ruin the fantasy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/05/2020 19:32:17
I know there is nothing; no evidence, no math and no experiment that would cause you to admit you are wrong,You clearly know that this is nonsense.
You have found an error in my calculation and I have immediately accepted your important verification.
However, it seems that now you have no answer to my question:
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.If you had an answer to my question, you would surly introduce it and close the discussion.
Please no more "hand waiving".
Only real math.
However, it is quite clear that you have no answer to this question.
Therefore, you continue with your hand waiving and as usual use the best tactic to "kill" the other side by highlighting his poor knowledge and ignorant in science:
Dave, you are ignorant of the BBT and science in general.Sorry, you have lost your case
You had a wish that the Inflation would help you to save the case.
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.
So, instead of highlighting your math calculation or accept the idea that you have lost the case, you hope that if the other side will be afraid to show himself as an ignorant, he will have to accept whatever you say just to be in the winning side.
Sorry, I do not afraid from you nonsense about my knowledge.
I do care only about science law.
Hence, let's close the discussion on this issue by concluding that the science community can't backup the unrealistic expansion by math.
Now, you are more than welcome to continue with your hand waiving as you wish!
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2020 20:05:18
You have found an error in my calculation and I have immediately accepted your important verification.I found another problem or two, but you haven't addressed them.
However, the Inflation process can just set the Universe at only 10,000 Ly. No more than that.What orifice did you pull that number from?
Now it is impossible mission for the space expansion to take the Universe from this size and bring it to 92BLY in only 13BY.Is that an attempt at proof by loud assertion?
It's not enough to say it is impossible; you have to explain why.
or accept the idea that you have lost the case,There's no reason to suppose that we have.
Hence, let's close the discussion on this issue by concluding that the science community can't backup the unrealistic expansion by math.You can't close a discussion by ignoring the facts.
I do care only about science law.Why not learn some then? It can be very rewarding.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/05/2020 20:25:42
I do care only about science law.
Oh please. If that was true, you'd quit posting ideas that break the laws of physics.
Post by: Bobolink on 01/05/2020 22:55:21
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.The observable universe is about 13.8 bly the actual size is about 93 bly.
I have corrected your math 2 or 3 times, I am done. Here is how the age is computed. This is from Wiki:
If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age
is then given by an expression of the form
where
is the Hubble parameter and the function F depends only on the fractional contribution to the universe's energy content that comes from various components. The first observation that one can make from this formula is that it is the Hubble parameter that controls that age of the universe, with a correction arising from the matter and energy content. So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the Hubble time, the inverse of the Hubble parameter. With a value for around 69 km/s/Mpc, the Hubble time evaluates to 
= 14.5 billion years.[6]Spend as much time on this as you want. If you think it is wrong, then call your nearest university or college and talk with them.
Now getting back to your conjecture, why do you think it is ok to violate relativity?
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/05/2020 06:14:21
I have corrected your math 2 or 3 times, I am done.Ok
So, it is clear that you and all the science community didn't set any math to verify the minimal time interval that is needed to expand the Universe from 10,000Ly to 20,000, from 20,000 to 40,000 and so on till 92BLY. .
Once we agree with that, we can continue the discussion.
So, in order to bypass this problem you continue with your hand waving and ask for some help from Mr. Friedmann.
If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation.However, do you know that the Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic?
However, our universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic. This was very clear also to Mr. friedmann.
Therefore, in order to bypass this problem he had assumed that empirically, this is justified on scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
Hence, you can't use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than 100Mpc.
So, you can't just take the Universe at the size of 10,000Ly and set Friedmann equations which is relevant only for scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
As you try to do so, you set a severe violation that is the base for the severe mistake at the age/size of our Universe.
It is also important to highlight at this point that our scientists don't really see any sort of space expansion.
They only see expansion in the galaxies.
As they couldn't find any real logical answer for that, they came with this imagination that called space expansion.
In real physics law there is no room for space expansion or time expansion.
Therefore, the whole concept of space expansion is a severe violation of physics law.
However, if you use a violation element as space expansion in your theory, you also should discover it sooner or later.
So, in real theory you must set the expectation and verify the results.
Therefore, if our scientists assume that there is space expansion, they must understand the outcome of that activity and backup it with real observation.
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!
At that point, the science community had to look for better theory for our Universe.
However, and 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.
ow getting back to your conjecture, why do you think it is ok to violate relativity?I have already deeply explained that there is no contradiction between relativity to Theory D
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.With regards to Relativity
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.
Therefore at nearby aria we would never ever see any Star/galaxy or even photon crossing faster than the speed of light.
However, in a very far distance, it might be different. Therefore, we clearly see/know that at the far end of our visible Universe galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
This by itself doesn't set any contradiction to the concept of space expansion or theory D.
However, at nearby aria it is totally different.
Nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
However, 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.
That theory clearly contradicts Einstein relativity concept.
Therefore, I reject the whole Inflation process as it is unrealistic due to relativity.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/05/2020 06:35:06
It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.
Ha ha, no.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/05/2020 11:32:35
Few words about Albert Einstein and its relativity theoryIt seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.Ha ha, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Born: March 14, 1879, Ulm
Died: April 18, 1955, Princeton, New Jersey
In 1914, he was elected to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, where he remained for 19 years. Soon after publishing his work on special relativity, Einstein began working to extend the theory to gravitational fields; he then published a paper on general relativity in 1916, introducing his theory of gravitation."
So, Einstein had published his theories about special/general relativity before the ending of the First World War.
At that time no one really considered that galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light.
So, the relativity was perfectly OK for the information that was available at that time (about a compact universe without any ability to move galaxies faster than the speed of light at the far end of our visible universe).
Einstein had passed away is 1955 while our scientists have discovered the ultra high velocity of far away galaxies only in 1990.
Therefore, he and the whole science community didn't know back in 1916 and up to 1990 that there is any possibility that far away galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.
Hence, we can't blame Einstein for missing this key information in his formula of relativity.
However, in the same token, those scientists that brought the idea of the BBT were positively sure that the expansion is slowing. Therefore, before 1990 they clearly didn't have a basic clue about the idea that far away galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.
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.Therefore, it was expected that this discovery should eliminate the BBT.
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!
So, please how can you tell now that only the BBT can explain that phenomenon while in reality it was a clear contradiction with the BBT.
Do you really think that you can change the history?
However, somehow our scientist came with brilliant ideas: Dark matter and inflation.
1. Inflation - The inflation is a direct contradiction with the relativity.
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.There is no way to get locally velocities which is faster than the speed of light. This idea contradicts with the Relativity. Therefore, the inflation is just imagination.
2. Dark matter
as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":However, In order to validate the Dark matter our scientists have used the" forbidden" cosmological constant that Einstein have set in his formula. They have totally neglected the simple fact that later on he had stated that this was his biggest mistake:
Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.
"In many Einstein biographies, it is claimed that Einstein referred to the cosmological constant in later years as his "biggest blunder". The astrophysicist Mario Livio has recently cast doubt on this claim, suggesting that it may be exaggerated.[196]
So till 1990 no one really consider to use this forbidden cosmological constant and there was no need for that as our scientists were sure that due to the BBT the expansion is slowing down.
Therefore, In order to bypass that killing discovery, our scientists have decided to use that cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his request. Therefore, it is a clear violation on Einstein formula.
So again, do you really think that you can change the history?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2020 12:00:56
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.
SoCan 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.
Do you accept that you were mistaken in thinking that a microwave background implies an infinite universe?
Post by: Bobolink on 02/05/2020 13:43:30
I have already deeply explained that there is no contradiction between relativity to Theory DNo you haven't explained it. Your conjecture states that galaxies can move through space faster than light. That clearly and unambiguously violates relativity. If your conjecture is true then you have falsified relativity.
How do you explain this? Is Einstein wrong or are you wrong?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/05/2020 17:08:35
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/05/2020 17:57:09
Is Einstein wrong or are you wrong?You are wrong
Your conjecture states that galaxies can move through space faster than light. That clearly and unambiguously violates relativity. If your conjecture is true then you have falsified relativity.How can you speak in the name of relativity while the BBT directly contradicts both the Inflation and the space expansion?
How do you explain this?
Did you try to read my following explanation?
1. Inflation - The inflation is a direct contradiction with the relativity.As I have already explained Einstein was not aware in his time about the discovery that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:14:21
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.
There is no way to get locally velocities which is faster than the speed of light. This idea contradicts with the Relativity. Therefore, the inflation is just imagination.
2. Dark matter
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:14:21
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.
However, In order to validate the Dark matter our scientists have used the" forbidden" cosmological constant that Einstein have set in his formula. They have totally neglected the simple fact that later on he had stated that this was his biggest mistake:
"In many Einstein biographies, it is claimed that Einstein referred to the cosmological constant in later years as his "biggest blunder". The astrophysicist Mario Livio has recently cast doubt on this claim, suggesting that it may be exaggerated.[196]
So till 1990 no one really consider to use this forbidden cosmological constant and there was no need for that as our scientists were sure that due to the BBT the expansion is slowing down.
Therefore, In order to bypass that killing discovery, our scientists have decided to use that cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his request. Therefore, it is a clear violation on Einstein formula.
So again, do you really think that you can change the history?
Therefore, his theory was applicable to the compact and local Universe that was known at his time.
So Einstein have told us in his relativity theories that in his compact and local universe there is NO WAY to get velocities faster than the speed of light.
Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light. This is a fatal contradiction with Einstein relativity theory.
That by itself knocks down the BBT.
Maybe you should go study what relativity actually claims instead of straw-manning it.As you know relativity much better than me, don't you see clear contradiction between relativity to the velocities faster than light in the inflation assumption?
However, I assume that our science community are not going to give up so soon. Hence if that is not good enough, than let's look again on the history of the BBT.
As I have already explained, before 1990 our scientists were expecting that the expansion should slow down.
Therefore, the discovery of the velocities of the far end galaxies (higher than the speed of light) set a sever contradiction with the expectation based on the BBT at that time.
This is one more reason why the BBT might be none relevant.
In any case, in order to keep the BBT alive, our scientists have offered the dark matter.
So, it is not the expansion that takes those far end galaxies faster than the speed of light (and overcome the gravity) but it is the dark matter that does this job.
Therefore, do you agree that the BBT overcomes the relativity/gravity problems by dark energy.
However, our scientists don't have any clue about that dark energy:
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
"A mysterious quantity known as dark energy makes up nearly three-fourths of the universe, yet scientists are unsure not only what it is but how it operates."
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, that dark energy is offered as a saver element for the BBT without any clue what is that dark energy, how it had been evolved and if it is really there..
It is also stated:
"Calculating the energy needed to overcome gravity, scientists determined that dark energy makes up roughly 68 percent of the universe. Dark matter makes up another 27 percent, leaving the "normal" matter that we are familiar with to make up less than 5 percent of the cosmos around us."
So, our scientists want us to believe that this dark matter is actually 68 present from the whole energy in the universe while the Normal matter including all the galaxies in the observable 92BLY universe is less than 5%.
So, how can we believe that those extra 95% energy is needed for the BBT just to explain the 5% of the real matter that we see?
Let me ask you the following?
It is clear that our science community feel that they have full control on the Knowledge in the Universe. They deliver any dark matter and dark energy at any density and at any location that is needed for them in order to support the BBT.
So, why for example, it is forbidden for me to use those brilliant ideas of dark energy/matter?
If it works for the BBT, why I can't use them also for Theory D or any sort of theory?
Why I can't assume that those dark ideas were there before the BBT and than those dark energies have set the entire infinite Universe. No need for a bang and no need to set any sort of calculation.
Do you agree with that?
So, if it makes it more acceptable, do you agree that I can use those dark ideas also for theory D (although there is no need for them)?
In this way you won't ask me again about relativity and we all should be very satisfy.
Or do you mean that only our scientists that believe in the BBT have full access to those dark ideas and therefore, no body else should use them in his theory in order to overcome the relativity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2020 18:52:31
Did you try to read my following explanation?That's an explanation of why you think teh BBT doesn't agree with relativity- it's mistaken , but that's not the point>
You can tell us how a million different ideas don't agree with relativity.
It won't make any difference to the fact that your idea does not agree with relativity.
It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.Relativity has been verified on, at least, an intergalactic scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
Post by: Bobolink on 02/05/2020 19:00:02
You are wrongPlease show me where I am wrong. I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light.
Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light.False. The universe was expanding faster than light, the mass was not moving.
Let me again remind you, your inability to understand a concept does not make it wrong.
But this is all a waste of time, you don't want to learn because then you would have to abandon your 'theory'.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/05/2020 20:35:02
As you know relativity much better than me, don't you see clear contradiction between relativity to the velocities faster than light in the inflation assumption?
Another perfect example of you not understanding relativity. Or inflation. Or both. Probably both.
Post by: Bobolink on 02/05/2020 21:17:17
Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light.Sorry, that is just your misunderstanding. Nobody thinks matter moved faster than light, ever. What you are trying to say is that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
So Einstein have told us in his relativity theories that in his compact and local universe there is NO WAY to get velocities faster than the speed of light.Einstein's mathematics showed that nothing can move through space faster than c. The math is easy, just high school algebra. The closer you approach c the higher your relativistic mass becomes, at c your relativistic mass becomes infinite. So obviously, you can't get there.
This is a fatal contradiction with Einstein relativity theory.It would be a flaw if we thought that mass went faster than light, but we don't so it isn't.
That by itself knocks down the BBT.Except the BBT doesn't say that mass moves faster than light, so not a problem.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/05/2020 06:06:08
Please show me where I am wrong.You and our science community have a fatal error in your calculation of time/age of the Universe.
You have stated:
If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age is then given by an expression of the formI have replied:
where is the Hubble parameter and the function F depends only on the fractional contribution to the universe's energy content that comes from various components. The first observation that one can make from this formula is that it is the Hubble parameter that controls that age of the universe, with a correction arising from the matter and energy content. So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the Hubble time, the inverse of the Hubble parameter. With a value for around 69 km/s/Mpc, the Hubble time evaluates to = 14.5 billion years.[6]
do you know that the Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic?So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
However, our universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic. This was very clear also to Mr. friedmann.
Therefore, in order to bypass this problem he had assumed that empirically, this is justified on scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
Hence, you can't use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than 100Mpc.
So, you can't just take the Universe at the size of 10,000Ly and set Friedmann equations which is relevant only for scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
As you try to do so, you set a severe violation that is the base for the severe mistake at the age/size of our Universe.
Once you understand that, you have to agree that our scientists have fatal error in their assumption about age/size of the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 08:46:15
So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.
So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it for smaller samples of the early universe.
So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.
Post by: Bobolink on 03/05/2020 12:51:54
You and our science community have a fatal error in your calculation of time/age of the Universe.I guess it's nice to feel you are smarter than all of the scientists in the world. It is especially surprising since you can't even do freshman physics.
You did not answer the question I asked, so I will ask again.
"Please show me where I am wrong. I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light."
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/05/2020 16:01:48
"Please show me where I am wrong. I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light."I have already answered this question
So, let me tell you again:
Based on theory D, the hypothetical idea was that galaxies at the far end should move faster than the speed of light.
That was clear to me several years ago while I had no clue if we have a prove for that..
We all know that we can justify expectation/hypothetical ideas by math/physical law. However, the highest level of confirmation is - observation.
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
As there is a clear observation for that idea, than there is no need for me to deal with any sort of contradiction that you might have with this concept or other one even if it is called Relativity.
Just an example - Let's assume that based on Einstein formula birds can't fly backwards.
So, if we find a bird that flying backwards, do we need to kill it as it doesn't obey to Einstein formula, or could it be that there is an error in the formula???
Sorry, it is up to you to solve the contradiction between observation to any sort of hypothetical ideas/ formulas.
This is your job to update the formula so it will reflect the OBSERVATION.
Our universe is not working according to our scientists' formula
It must work the other way.
Our scientists' formulas must represent the universe that we see.
Newton didn't set the gravity formula and ask the Universe to obey to his formula.
It was the other way. Newton formula represents the gravity of our universe
At the same token, as there is a contradiction between the relativity to the Observation you have two options:
Option one - As the Universe doesn't obey to the relativity formula, we should consider destroying that knotty Universe and asking for new one the meets the relativity.
Option two - Update the relativity formula to meet the new observation
Please choose one.
In any case, you surly can't now claim that ONLY the BBT can solve the contradiction between the observations to the relativity.
This is a FATAL historical mistake and clear lie.
Based on the BBT and the expansion till 1990, our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT???
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.
So, how can you claim now that ONLY BBT has the explanation for this discovery, while it was the Biggest surprising observation for our scientists in 1990?
Do you really think that you can change the history?
Actually, upon this discovery, our scientists have almost abandon the BBT and the whole expansion theory.
Just after the imagination idea of Dark energy the BBT came back to life.
It is stated back on white in the history of the BBT.
Even so, in order to justify that dark energy our scientists add the forbidden cosmological constant to Einstein equation, while he has stated that this constant is its biggest mistake in his entire life.
So, how do you dare to speak in the name of Einstein relativity formula, while on the other hand you set this forbidden constant cosmological in his formula?
If you really care about Einstein - than first take out the cosmologic constant from his formulas and then let's discuss.
So, how can you claim that only the BBT can explain the ultra high velocity of far end galaxies while we all know that this discovery almost kill the BBT?
Don't you have some minimal respect to history?
In any case, it is our scientists' obligation to update the formulas to meet our observable Universe even if this formula is called relativity.
This is their job. Not mine.
I still waiting for your answer:
So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
Once you understand that, you have to agree that our scientists have fatal error in their assumption about age/size of the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 16:32:14
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.Where is the article that says things move through space faster than light rather than that space itself is expanding faster than light?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 16:33:06
I still waiting for your answer:
Let me know why this was delayed.
So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.
So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it for smaller samples of the early universe.
So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 16:37:20
I still waiting for your answer:
Let me know why this was delayed.
Speaking of "still waiting".So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.
So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it for smaller samples of the early universe.
So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.
When are you going to address the issues and questions I raised here?
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.
SoCan 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.
Post by: Bobolink on 03/05/2020 19:46:34
Based on theory D, the hypothetical idea was that galaxies at the far end should move faster than the speed of light.That violates relativity so we can safely toss that conjecture out with the trash.
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
In any case, you surly can't now claim that ONLY the BBT can solve the contradiction between the observations to the relativity.There is no contradiction. I don't know if you're just trolling now or not smart enough to understand.
Based on the BBT and the expansion till 1990, our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down.Of course not! This whole science thing is a real mystery to you, isn't it?
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT???
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.False. Apparently, the BTT is another mystery to you. Hint: Dark energy is not required to have recession velocities exceed the speed of light.I
Even so, in order to justify that dark energy our scientists add the forbidden cosmological constant to Einstein equation, while he has stated that this constant is its biggest mistake in his entire life.Your child like understanding of these fairly complicated ideas make any discussion, really challenging, annoying and ultimately useless. Your basic response so far has been to stick your fingers in your ears and say nuh-uh.
So, how do you dare to speak in the name of Einstein relativity formula, while on the other hand you set this forbidden constant cosmological in his formula?
Let my try with small words and short sentences.
The field equations of General Relativity indicated that the universe was not static. Einstein thought it probably was static so he put in a fudge factor to make the equation say the universe was static. Oops, he realized the universe was not static so he took out the fudge factor.
Recent measurements indicate that as of about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate. The field equations of General Relativity did not reflect these observations. A cosmological constant was added to the field equations to have them accurately reflect observations.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/05/2020 17:46:21
The field equations of General Relativity indicated that the universe was not static. Einstein thought it probably was static so he put in a fudge factor to make the equation say the universe was static. Oops, he realized the universe was not static so he took out the fudge factor.Yes, that is fully correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
In theoretical physics, when Albert Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant), whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation. He later called this, "the biggest blunder of my life."[2]"
So, we all agree that Einstein have totally rejected the idea of this Fudge_factor that we call today "Cosmological Constant"
Recent measurements indicate that as of about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate.That is totally incorrect.
Our scientists only see that the farther a galaxy is located the faster it is moving.
So, the idea that about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate is just a fantasy.
As I have already explained, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real age of our universe due to the following:
Friedman equation: Those equations valid ONLY for Homogenous and isotropic Universe. However, it is very clear that our Universe is not homogenous and not isotropic. So, in order to bypass this problem Friedman assumed that it might be Homogenous and isotropic at a size which is bigger than 100 Mpc.
I don't agree with this assumption. It is not Homogenous and isotropic at any size.
Let me just use the following examples:
We can say that the cars in the highway from NY to DFW have all the variety of the color rainbow.
Therefore, if we look far away than the mix of the colors might be white.
So, theoretically we can assume that in large scale the color of all the cars in this highway is white.
Than we can say, that as they are already white in large scale, than if we dense them all in a limited area they will surely be white. So, we can say that even in small scale they are white.
In the same token our scientists wish to believe that when the Universe was smaller than 100 Mpc it was surly Homogenous and isotropic.
Sorry, I don't agree with the idea that the Universe is Homogenous an isotropic at larger than 100 Mpc and surly not when the whole Universe was smaller than 100 Mpc.
Don't forget that the inflation had ended when the Universe size was at the size of only 10,00 LY.
On the other hand, our scientists see mature SMBH and Galaxies with Billions of stars when the Universe age (based on their assumption) was younger than 600 MY and still quite compact.
So, if the early 100PC was homogenous and isotropic, than the density of the matter should be identical everywhere. That by itself is a direct contradiction to star/BH/SMBH/galaxies forming activity.
However, as usual our scientists always assume that the universe acts according to their wishing list.
So, when it is convenient to use Friedmann equation, than they assume for homogenous and isotropic also for small scale, while as they see young supper massive galaxy, than they assume that the star formation have started very early so the early universe shouldn't be considered as homogenous and isotropic.
I have also explained to you that it was a severe mistake to divide the temp by CMB' redshirt in order to get other estimation about the temp/age of the early universe and you have confirmed your error about it.
So, to make it short:
The assumption that about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate is just a fiction.
The field equations of General Relativity did not reflect these observations.The field equations of General Relativity don't need to reflect that imagination as the observation does not reflect any age..
The real Observation means - the farther the galaxy is, the faster it moves. That's all.
A cosmological constant was added to the field equations to have them accurately reflect observations.
As you have severe mistake in understanding the observation than it is also a severe mistake to add this cosmological constant to meet this imagination.
In any case, as Einstein had stated that this cosmological constant was his biggest mistake, than our scientists shouldn't use it in his formula under any circumstances.
However, it seems that nothing can stop them to believe in the BBT. Not even Einstein himself.
I wonder how our scientists dare to bring back that constant to Einstein formula against his clear request/will and still call it Einstein formula???
In any case, if they wish to add this constant in Einstein formula than they shouldn't use this formula under his name.
As they carry Einstein name for nothing than it is a severe lie.
That is incorrect.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48False. Apparently, the BTT is another mystery to you. Hint: Dark energy is not required to have recession velocities exceed the speed of light.I
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.
The history is written black on white:
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
"In 1929, American astronomer 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 was, just how much was the expansion slowing?"
So, our scientists were sure that the expansion is slowing.
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, our scientists in 1990 have assumed that the dark energy is needed to this acceleration.
If now you have changed your assumption, than this is OK.
But you can't change the history.
If you do so you actually lie.
That violates relativity so we can safely toss that conjecture out with the trash.How do you dare to speak on the name of Einstein Relativity, while just now you have approved to ignore his direct request for not to adding that cosmological constant in his formula?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
So you have even confirmed itQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 03:31:57It was never in doubt that the recession velocity of galaxy can exceed c, that has been known for decades.
We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 17:49:09
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.Where is the article that says things move through space faster than light rather than that space itself is expanding faster than light?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 18:00:39
"In 1929, American astronomer 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.OK, so you have documented the start of the BBT as1929
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!And you have set the date for the idea that we needed dark energy (or something) as about 1990.
(It's 1992 really,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00644200
but that's not the point)
Do you understand that 1929 is before 1990?
So, at any time between 1929 and the 1990s anyone who was asked about the BBT couldn't have included any discussion about dark energy.
For example, if you had asked me when Iwas a student, I'd have been able to explain BBT to you without needing to include the term "dark energy" because- and this is important, dark energy isn't actually part of the BBT.
Dark energy is what happens AFTER the big bang
It's an addition to the study of cosmology, but a BBT can (and did, and still does ) exist without it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 18:08:35
So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
So you have even confirmed itIt's the misunderstanding then.
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.
Which way does the ship move?
OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?
If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.
Do you understand how that can happen?
Post by: Bobolink on 04/05/2020 18:45:53
That is totally incorrect.That is bold faced lie.
Our scientists only see that the farther a galaxy is located the faster it is moving.
As I have already explained, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real age of our universeWhat an idiot.
In any case, as Einstein had stated that this cosmological constant was his biggest mistake, than our scientists shouldn't use it in his formula under any circumstances.What an idiot.
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."What an idiot. You said "our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down." That false and not something that a scientist would say about any theory. I realize that these concepts are way to subtle for an idiot to understand.
So, our scientists in 1990 have assumed that the dark energy is needed to this acceleration.
If now you have changed your assumption, than this is OK.
But you can't change the history.
If you do so you actually lie.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/05/2020 20:23:05
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/05/2020 04:23:07
What an idiot.Shame on you!
As of this moment, I have no intention to read your messages any more.
Thanks for all your efforts so far.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/05/2020 09:03:58
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.
Which way does the ship move?
OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?
If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.
Do you understand how that can happen?
Post by: Bobolink on 06/05/2020 14:24:02
Thanks for all your efforts so far.I can't say the same for you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/05/2020 15:11:25
Is there anyone here with whom Dave isn't having a childish "I'm not listening" hissy fit?
If so you could you ask him if he understands how a ship with a top speed of 10 knotts might get between two ports 19 nautical Miles apart in an hour, if there's a 9 knot current.
Because it's possible that understanding that will help him understand how, if space is moving, a thing can move through space at less than C but end up sufficiently far away that it seemed to exceed C,
And maybe then he will recognise that the BBT and inflation is perfectly consistent with relativity.
Alternatively, perhaps Dave would like to just grow up a bit, and respond for himself.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/05/2020 04:27:01
I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.Thanks Kryptid
I do appreciate your request that this discussion wouldn't devolve into insults.
However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
"Frustration" by Google: the feeling of being upset or annoyed, especially because of inability to change or achieve something.
That high negative emotion could lead us into awful things as insults.
Why not using the word - "disappointed"?
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.
So, I'm disappointed that you believe in space expansion, while you are frustrated that I don't accept your point of view.
So, let's make it clear:
What do we really see?
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?
So, I'm disappointed that you mix up between space expansion to matter expansion, while you are frustrated that I can't see those activities as one.
So, please is there any possibility to keep our emotion at the level of disappointed instead of frustration?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2020 05:50:10
However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
Because we seem to be incapable of fixing the misconceptions you have about the way physics works, regardless of how much we explain it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 09:17:05
By refusing to address points we raise, you are deliberately frustrating our attempts to educate you.I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.Thanks Kryptid
I do appreciate your request that this discussion wouldn't devolve into insults.
However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
"Frustration" by Google: the feeling of being upset or annoyed, especially because of inability to change or achieve something.
That high negative emotion could lead us into awful things as insults.
Why not using the word - "disappointed"?
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.
So, I'm disappointed that you believe in space expansion, while you are frustrated that I don't accept your point of view.
So, let's make it clear:
What do we really see?
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?
So, I'm disappointed that you mix up between space expansion to matter expansion, while you are frustrated that I can't see those activities as one.
So, please is there any possibility to keep our emotion at the level of disappointed instead of frustration?
What do we really see?We really see the expansion of space.
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
Because matter can not expand through space at more than C
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 09:17:38
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.
Which way does the ship move?
OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?
If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.
Do you understand how that can happen?
Post by: Bobolink on 07/05/2020 13:31:47
However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?The most frustrating thing is Dave's willful ignorance. Dave is enamored with his absurd Conjecture D and the only way to continue to believe that it is viable is to reject physics. Dave will therefore ignore, mischaracterize or obfuscate any explanation given to him on why his ideas are wrong. If that fails Dave will say all the physicists are wrong and he is right. Dave works very hard to remain ignorant. I believe that level of willful ignorance is idiotic. It is also troll behaviour and as such I should not get frustrated and realize he cannot be educated because he absolutely does not want to. So discussion with Dave is useless, just pointing out his ideas are wrong is the best you can do.
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.you are wrong.
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?We all agree you are wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/05/2020 20:37:17
Because we seem to be incapable of fixing the misconceptions you have about the way physics worksWell, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2020 20:51:51
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?
We have been, but you consistently fail to understand it when we do.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 21:17:48
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?Red shift
Now it's your turn.
Tell us anything that contradicts the BBT.
(The real one, not the strawman one you usually go on about).
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 21:18:52
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.
Which way does the ship move?
OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?
If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.
Do you understand how that can happen?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2020 05:06:32
There are several contradictionsQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:37:17Red shift
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?
Now it's your turn.
Tell us anything that contradicts the BBT.
(The real one, not the strawman one you usually go on about).
Let me start with the following Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG
Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law.[24] Various estimates for the Hubble constant exist. The HST Key H0 Group fitted type Ia supernovae for redshifts between 0.01 and 0.1 to find that H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1,[25] while Sandage et al. find H0 = 62.3 ± 1.3 (statistical) ± 5 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1.[26]
In this diagram they want to show us that there is a correlation between distances to redshift velocity.
They have selected Ho = 68 km/s Mpc
Therefore, at 15 Mpc the velocity of the galaxies is expected to be about 1000 Km/s
However, we clearly see in this diagram that in virgo cluster there are two galaxies that are located at about 15 Mpc from us. Based on their redshift, one is moving away at about velocity of 500 Km/s, while the other one is moving at almost 2000 Km/s. So, the relative velocity between those galaxies is 2000-500 = 1500 Km/s, while both are located at 15Mpc from us.
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.
This constant is vital for Hubble's law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.
So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.
However, that law was the base for the BBT:
Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[2][3] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[4]. It is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality—Hubble constant—between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy, which can change over time, unlike the comoving distance, and its speed of separation v, i.e. the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time coordinate. (See uses of the proper distance for some discussion of the subtleties of this definition of 'velocity'.)
Please remember that this Hubble constant is used at Einstein formula as the "forbidden" cosmological constant.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.
Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
No more "Puzzled" scientists!
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today or we should find in the future for small scale and large scale.
If you can find one real observation that contradicts Theory D (now or in the future) at any scale, than I'm ready to set it in the garbage!
Only one is needed.
Post by: Bobolink on 08/05/2020 11:50:23
There are several contradictionsAll of this has been explained to you and yet you ignore the explanations.
Let me start with the following Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG
Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law.[24] Various estimates for the Hubble constant exist. The HST Key H0 Group fitted type Ia supernovae for redshifts between 0.01 and 0.1 to find that H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1,[25] while Sandage et al. find H0 = 62.3 ± 1.3 (statistical) ± 5 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1.[26]
In this diagram they want to show us that there is a correlation between distances to redshift velocity.
They have selected Ho = 68 km/s Mpc
Therefore, at 15 Mpc the velocity of the galaxies is expected to be about 1000 Km/s
However, we clearly see in this diagram that in virgo cluster there are two galaxies that are located at about 15 Mpc from us. Based on their redshift, one is moving away at about velocity of 500 Km/s, while the other one is moving at almost 2000 Km/s. So, the relative velocity between those galaxies is 2000-500 = 1500 Km/s, while both are located at 15Mpc from us.
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.
This constant is vital for Hubble's law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.
So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.
However, that law was the base for the BBT:
Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[2][3] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[4]. It is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality—Hubble constant—between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy, which can change over time, unlike the comoving distance, and its speed of separation v, i.e. the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time coordinate. (See uses of the proper distance for some discussion of the subtleties of this definition of 'velocity'.)
Please remember that this Hubble constant is used at Einstein formula as the "forbidden" cosmological constant.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.
Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
No more "Puzzled" scientists!
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today or we should find in the future for small scale and large scale.
Prime example of willful ignorance.
There is nothing wrong with being ignorant and you can learn what you don't know, there is everything wrong with being willfully ignorant. Fighting reality to hold on to your ignorance is crazy.
Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.Except for the fact that it is not possible, you can't go faster than light. So your 'perfect explanation' is a fantasy.
Your conjecture fails miserably, on almost every point.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 12:31:19
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.No more so than the presence of a car on the road.
A car at a distance of practically zero would have a red shift of zero, but teh police are perfectlly able to measure that shift with a speed trap.
The explanatuion is that a car has an engine.
The explanation of some things having a speed that differs from the one calculated by Hubble's law is that expansion isn't the only thing that makes things move.
So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.At small scales, the other factors are relatively, more significant- obviously.
That's not a problem for Hubble's law or for the BBT.
It's a problem of your understanding.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.Obviously nonsense, all measurements have errors associated with them.
How did you imagine the errors would somehow "kill" the theory?
If anything, it is when measurements get better that they are able to kill theories.
Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.No it does not- because it breaches relativity.
This remains true no matter how many times you pretend it isn't true.
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see todayTheory D does not meet the observations that we make, because, unlike those observations, it does not agree with relativity.
If you can find one real observation that contradicts Theory D (now or in the future) at any scale, than I'm ready to set it in the garbage!There are lots.
Take your pick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 12:32:56
There are several contradictionsYou forgot to show any.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2020 14:10:50
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:06:32Theory D does not meet the observations that we make, because, unlike those observations, it does not agree with relativity.
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today
Sorry, this is incorrect
Our scientists clearly see/observe far end galaxies as they are moving faster than the speed of light!
I have already offered this article:
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.So, it is very possible that galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than light!!!
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.
This is real observation
However, as expected this observation is not good enough for you.
Based on your full control on science, this Observation is none relevant to any other theory except of the BBT, while the relativity is relevant to all theories except the BBT
So, our scientists can decide which one can use the observation and which one can use the relativity
Therefore, based on your wisdom, it is forbidden to use this observation as an observation unless it is used in the BBT!!!
In other words – you take this observation for the benefit of the BBT, while you keep all the other ordinary people to fight with the relativity.
This is your biggest problem.
There is big difference between two locally galaxies to two very far away galaxies.
The BBT has no royalty for relativity or for that clear observation that far end galaxies are moving faster that the speed of light.
As we do see/observe that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light than it proves that the relativity works only locally. This is correct for the BBT and for any other theory.
Once you claim that the BBT can use the Observation and ignore he relativity due to some nonsense that you wish, than this by itself is a severe contradiction in science.
Therefore, you do not speak in the name of science, but in the name of the BBT.
How can you present yourself as a scientist while you speak in the name of the BBT?
You should consider changing your title to "BBT scientist" or BBT believer!
In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift. Rather than cosmological redshifts being a consequence of the relative velocities that are subject to the laws of special relativity (and thus subject to the rule that no two locally separated objects can have relative velocities with respect to each other faster than the speed of light).
So, the laws of special relativity is subject to the rule that no two locally separated objects can have relative velocities with respect to each other faster than the speed of light.
So, they don't say even one word about relativity for far away galaxies.
Do you really feel that you can band the science law as you wish?
How do you dare to speak in the name of science, while you band the observations and science laws to support only your wishful BBT.
There is a clear observation that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
Observation is at the top level of evidence.
As we observe that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light, than it proves that relativity works ONLY locally.
I don't need to deal with relativity or with the BBT.
This observation is free for all!!!
It is your problem. You have to adjust the relativity to meet the observation
Our mathematical calculations or formulas should represent the observations and not vice versa.
If you don't agree with this article that claims that relativity works locally and you also reject the clear observation, than it is your problem.
Galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light with the BBT or without the BBT.
For theory D this observation is good enough!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 14:36:12
Our scientists clearly see/observe far end galaxies as they are moving faster than the speed of light!You seem to be deliberately missing this
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.
Which way does the ship move?
OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?
If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.
Do you understand how that can happen?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2020 15:42:08
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space. I only care about real observation.
Do you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?
If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.
So, please keep your ship in the sea. However, you have no authority to claim that it is forbidden for me to use this clear observation, while you use it in your BBT.
By doing so, you clearly position yourself as a BBT believer and not as honest scientist that only care about real science.
With regards to the Expansion in space:
The expansion in space can't be natural activity and therefore it is a severe contradiction to all physics law.
As you like the concept of Minkowski space-time, and you assume for space expansion, than why don't you also assume for time expansion?
Those idea are none naturals.
It seems to me that only god could set expansion in space or expansion in time.
This could also explain why you do not deal with the energy before the bang.
We all know that god can supply unlimited energy at any given moment.
So, if someone wants to show that god is involved in the creation of the Universe, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.
Actually, could it be that I miss something?
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?
If yes, then I'm really sorry for this interrupt. I have to ask for apology from all of you.
This could clearly explain your deep frustration from my thread.
Post by: Bobolink on 08/05/2020 16:04:51
The expansion in space can't be natural activity and therefore it is a severe contradiction to all physics law.Wrong.
As you like the concept of Minkowski space-time, and you assume for space expansion, than why don't you also assume for time expansion?No.
Those idea are none naturals.Not talk good.
It seems to me that only god could set expansion in space or expansion in time.This, like all your other ideas is silly.
This could also explain why you do not deal with the energy before the bang.More silliness.
We all know that god can supply unlimited energy at any given moment.I don't know that.
So, if someone wants to show that god is involved in the creation of the Universe, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.The silliness continues.
Actually, could it be that I miss something?
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?
This could clearly explain your deep frustration from my thread.This has already been explained, it is your willful ignorance that is frustrating.
Your attempt provoke people in this post isn't frustrating, it is just pathetic trolling.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 17:14:06
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?Nothing to do with it.
I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space. I only care about real observation.Ships in seas and in space are real.
(So is the story of ships running backwards)
Do you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?No.
If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.
Because you are saying they travel at 19 knots WRT the water but in fact they are traveling at 19 knots WRT the land.
It is a different statement.
The important difference is that your statement is not true.
I have to ask for apology from all of you.You should do that regardless of anyone's view of God.
By doing so, you clearly position yourself as a BBT believer and not as honest scientist that only care about real science.If I didn't care about real science, I wouldn't be using my time trying to correct you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2020 19:23:48
Really???QuoteDo you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?No.
If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.
Did you read the following?
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."
What is the meaning of:
"how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light" or "it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light"
In any case, do you agree that based on the BBT far end galaxies are moving faster than the seed of light?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 19:45:42
moving faster than the seed of light?From the point of view of the jellyfish, the seagull, or the harbourmaster?
Post by: Bobolink on 08/05/2020 20:43:56
In any case, do you agree that based on the BBT far end galaxies are moving faster than the seed of light?Why do you keep asking the same question when you know that you will ignore the answer?
The answer is still no, the galaxies are not moving faster than light, just like the article states.
The part that you quoted always says galaxies "appear to be moving faster than light". The article say 'appear', because they are not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying along the galaxies.
Now you will show us a little willful ignorance or say the scientists are wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/05/2020 21:02:41
I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space.
This is a perfect example of why explanations are lost on you. Most anyone could see what Bored Chemist was trying to say with his ship analogy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/05/2020 01:18:31
Why do you keep asking the same question when you know that you will ignore the answer?
The answer is still no, the galaxies are not moving faster than light, just like the article states.
The part that you quoted always says galaxies "appear to be moving faster than light". The article say 'appear', because they are not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying along the galaxies.
Yes, your explanation was very clear to me
However, I have also found the following article about this issue:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/#3f837e2772a2
there's a critical distance where the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light: around a distance of 13-to-15 billion light-years. Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift. When we examine the sophisticated details of this relationship, we can unequivocally conclude that the "motion" explanation fails to match the data.
So, our scientists should know for sure that at a critical distance of 13-to-15 billion light-year, the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light.
I don't need more than that.
However, somehow you/they are positively sure that ONLY the BBT with its expansion in space can answer this phenomenon.
Therefore you claim for "appear to be moving faster than light"
So, if we discuss about the BBT, than this "appear to be moving faster than light" is real, while if we discuss on other theory than it is forbidden to use this "appear to be moving faster than light".
Is it real?
Do you think that only the BBT has royalties on the apparent recession speed of far end galaxies?
Actually, our scientists could estimate in 1917 (long before the BBT) that apparent recession of the far end galaxies will exceed the speed of light.
In this article they show that virgo at 78,000,000 Ly is moving away at 1,200 Km/s while hydra at 3,960,000,000 Ly is moving away at 61,000 Km/s.
They claim that this observation was "First noted by Vesto Slipher back in 1917"
Therefore, you don't need to be scientist in order to understand (in 1917) that as the galaxy is located further away its recession velocity should be higher.
Therefore, long before the BBT idea, our scientists could estimate that if our universe is big enough galaxies MUST have a recession velocity which is higher than the speed of light.
In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).
However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:
"when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored."
So, the relativity works at the same spatial location at the same moment in time.
However, if there are two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored.
" The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves."
In other words - at the far end (above 15 BLY) galaxies for sure are receding away faster than the speed of light.
If you are a BBT believer, than you can do so ONLY due to the expansion idea.
If you are not BBT believer, than you can do so due to different spacetime coordinates from one another.
Therefore, the location of different spacetime coordinates is very critical.
This fully meets the other article which highlighted that relativity works locally.
Therefore, we can't compare local activity at our current spacetime coordinates to different spacetime coordinates at the far away location
Hence, I have claimed that I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space (as long as they are located locally and I can still see them)
No, the ship analogy is valid only for local spacetime. We focus on different spacetime coordinates.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:08This is a perfect example of why explanations are lost on you. Most anyone could see what Bored Chemist was trying to say with his ship analogy.
I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space.
Therefore, this analogy is none relevant for our discussion!
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 02:53:37
Yes, your explanation was very clear to meYep, the article falsified your conjecture and supports the BBT.
However, I have also found the following article about this issue:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/#3f837e2772a2
there's a critical distance where the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light: around a distance of 13-to-15 billion light-years. Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift. When we examine the sophisticated details of this relationship, we can unequivocally conclude that the "motion" explanation fails to match the data.
I am a little puzzled why you would bring an article that says you are wrong though.
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 03:24:44
Actually, our scientists could estimate in 1917 (long before the BBT) that apparent recession of the far end galaxies will exceed the speed of light.That is false, you made that up.
When the recession velocity was first discovered they were not even sure there were other galaxies or if they were just looking at nebula. Do you have a source that shows astronomers were talking about recession velocities greater than c in 1917?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2020 06:09:00
No, the ship analogy is valid only for local spacetime. We focus on different spacetime coordinates.
If you actually knew what "space-time coordinates" meant, you would realize your statement is meaningless because all objects are already at different space-time coordinates (except, perhaps, quantum objects because they don't have a well-defined location)..
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/05/2020 11:24:01
If you actually knew what "space-time coordinates" meant, you would realize your statement is meaningless because all objects are already at different space-time coordinates (except, perhaps, quantum objects because they don't have a well-defined location)..Thanks.
So you claim that any object (except of...) already has a different space-time coordinates.
Therefore, you actually confirm the basic idea in that article that a far away galaxy should have its own different space-time coordinates.
Therefore, I don't see any contradiction between your explanation to the following article:
"when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored."
"The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves."
Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates
Now, let's see if I understand your key message:
You all claim that: "The part that you quoted always says galaxies "appear to be moving faster than light". The article say 'appear', because they are not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying along the galaxies."
In other words, based on the BBT and the expansion theory, galaxies at the far end are not moving through space faster than the speed of light, but the space is expanding and carrying along those galaxies at a velocity faster than the speed of light.
So, based on the BBT galaxies are carried by the expansion in space at faster than the speed of light.
However, you insist that based on BBT those far end galaxies are not moving through space but they are carried at faster than the seed of light.
Therefore, due to the BBT it is forbidden to claim that they are moving though space at greater than the speed of light, but it is ok to claim that they are carried by expansion at faster than the speed of light.
Well, you actually band the physics law to support only your BBT theory.
Sorry - as you agree that galaxies are carried by expansion in space at faster than the speed of light, than by definition you have to agree that with regards to our point of view the recession velocity of those far end galaxies should be faster than the speed of light.
This doesn't contradict with the relativity.
I have already offered an article that relativity works locally.
So, at any local aria or relatively at close "space-time coordinates" we all agree that galaxies can't move faster than the speed of light with regards to each other.
However, at a very far away location (let's assume at 13-15 BLY away from us) the "space-time coordinates" of that location is quite different from our location. Therefore, the relative recession between one local "space-time coordinates" to the farther away "space-time coordinates" could be greater than the speed of light.
This doesn't contradicts the relativity as it works locally (I have already offered an article that supports this issue)
Therefore, due to relativity at each local space-time coordinates the galaxies can't move faster than the light.
Hence, I fully agree that galaxies can't move through space (or at their local space-time coordinates) at faster than the speed of light. However, two far away space-time coordinates could have a recession velocity which is faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, the expansion in space is not the ONLY ULTIMATE solution for the recession velocity but it could also be due to totally different space-time coordinates, relativity that works only locally, or even Abra cadabra.
As long as you agree that the recession velocity of far end galaxies could be faster than the speed of light, this is perfectly Ok for me.
I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.
So, please how do you dare to claim today that only the BBT can explain this recession velocity?
How can you forget the history so fast?
If your explanation about the expansion in space was correct, than why our scientists had to use the dark energy to overcome the gravity that should slow down that recession velocity?
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 11:41:43
Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinatesThat is a pop science article. Pop science articles are dumbed down so that laymen can get a general gist of a scientific theory. Apparently it was not dumbed down enough.
As you wrote, quoting from the article:
Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding,
You can't try use an article to support your conjecture when it clearly contradicts it. I mean, WTF?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 11:50:16
I am a little puzzled why you would bring an article that says you are wrong though.I think the solution to that puzzle is that he didn't understand the article.
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 11:50:43
I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.Guess what, your highlight is totally wrong.
It was thought that the expansion was slowing down, but that still meant that the recession velocity increases with the distance to a galaxy. This is clearly explained in any decent article about expansion of the universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 11:53:00
Therefore, this analogy is none relevant for our discussion!"Non" is not the same as "none".
And the analogy is relevant, it's just that you don't understand it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 12:10:05
"Vesto Melvin Slipher (/ˈslaɪfər/; November 11, 1875 – November 8, 1969) was an American astronomer who performed the first measurements of radial velocities for galaxies. He was the first to discover that distant galaxies are redshifted, thus providing the first empirical basis for the expansion of the universe.He was also the first to relate these redshifts to velocity."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesto_Slipher
Now, if the rate of recession is roughly proportional to the distance, then two things can be deduced from that.
If the universe is "big enough" then there will be things whose rate of recession should exceed C.
And the other thing you can deduce is that, if you "run the film backwards" so to speak, you can find a point where all the universe was in the same place- a big bang.
The empirical data, over 100 years ago, showed that there was a big bang.
Yet Dave thinks this is evidence that there was no big bang.
Even without the "expansion" part of the BBT model, we need to account for relativity (for sufficiently distant objects).
One idea that would have been reasonable at the time (there' wouldn't have been data to show it was wrong) would have been to say that the universe isn't old enough and big enough for it to be a problem.
Another would have been to point out that the recession velocities are not due to travel through space (which is limited to C) but to travel with space.
A bit like a ship with a top speed of 10 knots travelling between two ports 19 nm apart in an hour because there was a 9 knot current.
A scientist thinking about this 100 years ago would have been perfectly happy with the second option.
Dave isn't, but nobody knows why.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 12:12:59
Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift.I'm just quoting the bit where Dave says exactly the opposite of what he thinks he says, just in case anyone gets creative with editing.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2020 17:26:39
Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates
Another demonstration that you don't know what "different space-time coordinates" means.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/05/2020 19:04:34
You can't try use an article to support your conjecture when it clearly contradicts it.No it doesn't
I have stated the following:
In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).So, they clearly explain the expansion issue. But they also add the explanation about different space-time coordinates.
However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:
"when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored."
That is a pop science articleWell, it is clear to me by now that any article that not fully support your exact point of view is automatically - pop science.
Yes, that is correct:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:24:01Guess what, your highlight is totally wrong.
I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.
It was thought that the expansion was slowing down, but that still meant that the recession velocity increases with the distance to a galaxy.
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
In 1929, American astronomer 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 was, just how much was the expansion slowing?
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
If you don't like that pop article, it is stated in the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
It was long thought that q was positive, indicating that the expansion is slowing down due to gravitational attraction. This would imply an age of the universe less than 1/H (which is about 14 billion years). For instance, a value for q of 1/2 (once favoured by most theorists) would give the age of the universe as 2/(3H). The discovery in 1998 that q is apparently negative means that the universe could actually be older than 1/H. However, estimates of the age of the universe are very close to 1/H.
So, until early 1990 our scientists were sure that the expansion is slowing down due to gravity. Therefore, they couldn't predict and they also didn't claim at that time that far end galaxies could have a recession velocity that is greater than the speed of light.
They were sure that the gravity is slowing down the expansion.
Therefore, they have offered one more imagination that is called dark energy.
So, the dark energy had to overcome on the gravity that was expected to slow down the expansion.
"To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, this is one more confirmation that our scientists were sure that due to gravity the expansion should slow down.
Therefore, as the expansion didn't slow down (as expected) than our scientists can't claim today that ONLY the BBT can give explanation for the recession velocity.
To make it short:
1.Do you confirm that based on the BBT galaxies at the far end have a recession velocity which is faster that the speed of light?
2. Do you agree that in early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that the expansion is slowing down?
If you agree with that, than you have to agree that the far end galaxies have recession velocity that is greater than the speed of light with the BBT or without the BBT
Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates
Another demonstration that you don't know what "different space-time coordinates" means.
I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.
Sorry, you can't keep the recession of the far end galaxies only at the BBT pocket with or without the different space-time coordinates
The BBT has no royalties for that discovery especially as it was not expected by the BBT.
Therefore, you can't prevent from theory D to use this key element!!!!
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2020 21:06:51
I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.
Because a contradiction in an expectation does not necessarily equal a falsification of a theory, that's why. The Big Bang theory in itself does not require either an accelerating expansion or a decelerating expansion.
Sorry, you can't keep the recession of the far end galaxies only at the BBT pocket with or without the different space-time coordinates
Nor have I tried to. Even if the Big Bang theory had never been proposed, your model would still be wrong because it violates special relativity (you know very well that you have never read from any authoritative source that objects that are far apart are allowed to move through space relative to each other faster than light. The reason that you have never read any such thing is because it isn't true). Spatial expansion doesn't violate special relativity because nothing is actually moving through space faster than light. That is the subtle difference that you seem to be incapable of grasping.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 21:34:29
Therefore, you can't prevent from theory D to use this key element!!!!Nobody really cares what you put into your idea (It's still not a theory)
It's still based on an error.
So it's still wrong.
Here's the error.
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.Since you started with a non sequitur, I stopped reading at this point.
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 22:25:24
Well, it is clear to me by now that any article that not fully support your exact point of view is automatically - pop science.This is a pop science article, but it does support the exact mainstream view.
You wrote:
In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).First and foremost the article does not say or imply that relativity is 'overcome'.
However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:
So what is this REAL reason you are talking about?
The article states:
But when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored.
His explanation leaves a bit to be desired but this is for people with no science education so...
He says special relativity says that objects moving relative to one another cannot exceed c. Good enough. He then is saying that for different spacetime coordinates or objects like galaxies that are very far apart there is another factor.
So what is this factor?
The article states:
In addition to the special relativistic motion, which occurs relative to the spacetime coordinate you're presently occupying, there's also an effect that only shows up when you start thinking in terms of general relativity: the curvature and evolution of spacetime itself.
Ah, this other factor is general relativity.
The article continues:
Whereas special relativity only takes place in uncurved, static space, the real Universe has matter and energy in it. The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves. If you're in the vicinity of a large mass, like a star or a black hole, space will be curved so that you'll experience an acceleration towards that mass. This happens even in the absence of motion relative to the fabric of space itself; space is behaving like a flowing river or a moving walkway, dragging all objects along with it as it flows.
So as the article mentions multiple times the galaxies are not moving through space faster than c, the expansion is faster than c, and this an attempt clarify how general relativity is involved and this was misunderstood by you. What a shock!
So the entire article supports the mainstream view of the BBT and says your conjecture is not possible.
So it is time for your almost superhuman willful ignorance to kick in and time for you to close your eyes and your mind to reality.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/05/2020 21:08:08
I really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.
Well, in engineering there is no room for contradiction.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:04:34Because a contradiction in an expectation does not necessarily equal a falsification of a theory, that's why.
I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.
Once you see and verify a contradiction, you set the theory in the garbage.
So, it is clear that astronomy and engineering works quite differently.
your model would still be wrong because it violates special relativityI'm quite sure that it doesn't.
The special relativity is very clear to me. However, I have already offered you an article that highlights that relativity might works locally.
The Big Bang theory in itself does not require either an accelerating expansion or a decelerating expansion.What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?
Is it Hubble law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
In the following article it is stated:
"Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model."
However, Hubble's law is based on the observation of galaxies that are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.
Therefore, this law tells us only about the galaxies expansions in space. It doesn't give any indication about the space expansion itself:
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance. In other words, the further they are the faster they are moving away from Earth. The velocity of the galaxies has been determined by their redshift, a shift of the light they emit to the red end of the spectrum"
Therefore, the assumption that we see/observe the expansion in space is totally wrong.
Our scientists have to say clearly that we only monitor the galaxies - not the space itself.
Therefore, The following statement is totally wrong:
"Today, in the context of general relativity, velocity between distant objects depends on the choice of coordinates used, and therefore, the redshift can be equally described as a Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) due to the expanding space, or some combination of the two."
How could they claim that "a Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) due to the expanding space" while they know for sure that this Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) is due to the expanding galaxies?
How they dare to change the expanding galaxies to expanding space?
This is a fatal lie.
They can tell us that they believe/hope/wish that this observation of expanding galaxies is due to expanding space.
However, when you read this article, you get a strong impression that they really measure the expanding space itself - and this is totally incorrect.
Therefore, Let's try to understand what is Hubble law:
"Hubble's law the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.
So, Hubble law is clearly related to expansion galaxies.
Therefore, the Hubble constant is also related to expansion galaxies
"Hubble constant is most frequently quoted in (km/s)/Mpc, thus giving the speed in km/s of a galaxy 1 megaparsec (3.09×1019 km) away, and its value is about 70 (km/s)/Mpc."
Therefore, Hubble constant Hubble gives excellent indication for the OBSERVED galaxies expansion in (km/s)/Mpc and its value is about 70 (km/s)/Mpc.
The question is - how can we explain this Observed galaxies expansion:
One option is by expansion in space as our scientists hope/wish.
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.
With both theories we get exactly the same result (Same Hubble constant – same Observable Universe).
Let's assume that we are located at point A
If we look at the horizon to one direction of our Universe we see galaxy B (at about 13BLY) with a recession velocity is almost the speed of light.
If we could jump over there, we should see in the same direction at the horizon galaxy C that is also moving almost at the speed of light.
In this way we can continue on and on to Galaxy D, E and F
To make it short.
A, B C D E F are located in one line
A see B at almost the speed of light
B see C at almost the Speed of Light and so on.
So, the Hubble constant is identical in Theory D and BBT, and both theories brings us to the same Universe - Density, Observable, CMB (I will discuss about it later on)...
Why are you so sure that the BBT must win due to special relativity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2020 21:50:24
Well, in engineering there is no room for contradiction.Well... science is able to change a theory in lhe light of new evidence,
Once you see and verify a contradiction, you set the theory in the garbage.
So, it is clear that astronomy and engineering works quite differently.
We learn.
If the same was true of engineering, we would not have cars. Nobody would have tried cars because they contradict the idea that you need a horse and cart.
I have already offered you an article that highlights that relativity might works locally.And I have pointed out that relativity has ben demonstrated on an intergalactic scale.
What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?All the relevant observations support the idea-.
That's why the idea is still around.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2020 21:59:17
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy....which violates relativity.
Post by: Bobolink on 12/05/2020 01:46:24
Thanks you allReally? Then why don't you put in a little effort to cut back on the willful ignorance and self delusion?
I really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2020 08:11:19
1.Do you confirm that the following information is correct:
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance. In other words, the further they are the faster they are moving away from Earth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?
So, Do you agree that Hubble's law / constant is all about galaxies expansion?
Hence, we do not observe the space expansion but we only observe/monitor the galaxies expansion?
2. Therefore, anyone who claims that we Observable/monitor the space expansion is a simple LIER?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2020 08:50:58
yes
Do you agree that Hubble's law / constant is all about galaxies expansion?No, it's about the expansion of space.
Hence, we do not observe the space expansion but we only observe/monitor the galaxies expansion?What we see is the red shift of galaxies
What the clever people deduce from that is that the galaxies are moving.
what the very clever people deduce is that , because the apparent velocity exceeds C, it must be space itself that is expanding.
In much the same way that someone who sees a ship apparently travelling faster than its top speed can deduce that there is a current.
Therefore, anyone who claims that we Observable/monitor the space expansion is a simple LIER?No, they might be clever enough to understand what's happening at a slightly deeper level than you do.
BTW, the word is ""liar".
Post by: Bobolink on 12/05/2020 12:16:49
Why do we keep feeding the troll?
I'm done. I might pop in from time to time to give a one word reply of 'wrong', but the as we all know, it is pointless to argue with a crank.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2020 12:31:14
Why do we keep feeding the troll?In case some unfortunate comes across this thread and thinks that, because it's on a respectable science site, it must be right.
It would be easier if the mods just closed down the most obvious cranks- at least the ones who really add nothing.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2020 05:24:21
In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?Thanks for the confirmation!
yes
What we see is the red shift of galaxies
So, if you confirm that we observe the redshift of the galaxies, than why do you claim that we OBSERVE the space expansion.
Therefore, Do you agree that your following reply is wrong?
As we don't have any direct observation for space expansion.QuoteWhat kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?All the relevant observations support the idea-.
What we see is the red shift of galaxiesThis kind of point of view is wrong. Let me offer an example of a car that is moving on the highway.
What the clever people deduce from that is that the galaxies are moving.
what the very clever people deduce is that , because the apparent velocity exceeds C, it must be space itself that is expanding.
If clever people see that car they deduce that it is moving on the highway by its engine power.
However, based on your wrong point of view, very clever people should deduce that the car is not moving at all. We just think that it is moving due to the expansion in the highway.
Sorry, this is none realistic. What we see is what we have!
As we see the redshift of the galaxies, it proves that the galaxies are moving.
Again - the galaxies are moving - not the imaginary space.
Why do we need very cleaver scientists to change the reality?
What's wrong with cleaver scientists that are willing to accept the reality as is?
If they see an elephant, than it is an elephant and not an Ant.
If they see a moving car, than this car is moving.
If they see a moving galaxy, than this galaxy is moving.
Please - it's time for our very cleaver scientists to accept the observation as is!!!!
Theory D gives a perfect explanation for moving galaxies based on Hubble law & constant.
No need for imaginary ideas as space expansion.
It is directly based only on real Scientific_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[
In this long list of Scientific_law I couldn't find even one word about expansion in space or even just about expansion.
This idea is not part of any Scientific_law and therefore it is not real.
How any scientist who is using the name of science can justify any idea that is not directly based on Scientific_law?
Why do you reject a theory that fully meets all Scientific_laws including Hubble law for moving galaxy only due to relativity, while you have no problem to accept this imagination idea of space expansion that is absolutely not part of any scientific law?
If you carry the name of Scientific_law for nothing, then please do it for all.
With regards to relativity or Faster-than-light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-lightQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 11/05/2020 21:08:08...which violates relativity.
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.
"According to the current scientific theories, matter is required to travel at slower-than-light (also subluminal or STL) speed with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region. "
So, they specifically claim - with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region.
A galaxy which is located at the horizon of the Universe couldn't considered as part of our locally distorted spacetime region.
Therefore, this far away galaxy could move faster than the speed of light relativity to our locally distorted spacetime region. However, it shouldn't move faster than the speed of light at its locally distorted spacetime region.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/05/2020 06:31:39
But I feel pretty certain that:
(1) Dave will not properly understand what this means, and
(2) he will find some way to pervert this information in order to claim that it doesn't actually support the notion of space expanding.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2020 17:49:20
In a static, unchanging space, the average angular diameter of galaxies should always fall off the same way with distance. A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small. If space is expanding, however, this trend does not continue indefinitely. Instead, there will be a point where more distant galaxies will start to look larger (because the expansion of space will cause their images to enlarge). There is a graph with data on this page (the one that says "Luminosity Distance") that shows that this expansion of angular diameter is indeed what we see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4925877ecb5fThanks Kryptid
This article is very interesting.
It is stated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4c714ee9cb5f
"The farther away we look, beyond a specific critical distance, objects actually appear larger the farther away they get. Even without gravitational lensing, the expanding Universe alone makes ultra-distant galaxies appear larger to our eyes."
However the expanding Universe is dedicated by Hubble law.
Please remember that based on Hubble law, we actually observe the redshift/expansion of the galaxies and not the space itself.
That Hubble law is the base for the expansion of galaxies in Theory D.
Therefore, as long as the expansion of galaxies in theory D meets Hubble law, the farther away Galaxies should be Magnified and appear larger to our eyes.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2020 18:38:38
Therefore, Do you agree that your following reply is wrong?No
As we don't have any direct observation for space expansion.We don't have any direct observation of atoms or even air but...
Who has seen the wind?
Neither I nor you:
But when the leaves hang trembling,
The wind is passing through.
Who has seen the wind?
Neither you nor I:
But when the trees bow down their heads,
The wind is passing by.
Science is allowed to use indirect observation and deduction.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/05/2020 22:03:22
Thanks Kryptid
This article is very interesting.
It is stated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4c714ee9cb5f
"The farther away we look, beyond a specific critical distance, objects actually appear larger the farther away they get. Even without gravitational lensing, the expanding Universe alone makes ultra-distant galaxies appear larger to our eyes."
However the expanding Universe is dedicated by Hubble law.
Please remember that based on Hubble law, we actually observe the redshift/expansion of the galaxies and not the space itself.
That Hubble law is the base for the expansion of galaxies in Theory D.
Therefore, as long as the expansion of galaxies in theory D meets Hubble law, the farther away Galaxies should be Magnified and appear larger to our eyes.
Yep, I was right. You didn't understand it!
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2020 22:17:22
If they see an elephant, than it is an elephant and not an Ant.And if they see a moving ship...
If they see a moving car, than this car is moving.
If they see a moving galaxy, than this galaxy is moving.
They don't actually know if the engine is running- because it could be driven by tide, current, or wind.
But if they see a ship moving faster then the engine can drive it, they know that it must also have a following wind or it is running with the current.
Why are you finding this so hard to understand?
First simple question.
Do you think that relativity is right (i.e. you can't go faster than C), or do you think that all the measurements and tests done on it somehow failed?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2020 14:40:22
And if they see a moving ship...Thanks for your great example.
They don't actually know if the engine is running- because it could be driven by tide, current, or wind.
However, if they see a ship moving faster than the engine can drive it, they know that it must also have a following wind or it is running with the current.
Why are you finding this so hard to understand?
It is all about Knowledge.
If you know that a ship or boat could carry a turbo jet engine boosted by rocket power, than you should know that it could lift itself over the water and fly at almost the speed of sound.
However, if you are an Indian living in America during the 15 century and see the mighty Spanish ships you might consider that you see the messenger of god.
Just to remind you that the Indians offered their daughters to those Spanish solders that were riding on a mighty animal that we called horse.
So, the Indians had no idea about ships or horses. Therefore, they have started to pray to those Spanish solders.
Could it be that our scientists behave as those Indian in the 15 century?
When our scientists saw for the first time the ultra high velocity of the far end galaxies they were very puzzled.
Therefore, they have adopted the BBT theory and start thinking about space expansion.
This is very normal. At that time they didn't had a clue about the cutting edge technology of rocket galaxies.
Therefore, they have believed in the BBT.
However, today with the most advanced knowledge of the rocket galaxies we know why the far end galaxies are moving at those ultra high velocities.
It is very natural.
It took the Indians only few years to understand the those Spanish solders aren't God messengers.
How long it should take our scientists to understand that the BBT isn't a theory from god and there is a simple explanation for our universe?
The rocket galaxies knowledge is very simple and natural.
We know that it is so simple to carry a boat at the speed of sound by the most advanced rockets.
No need for tide, wind or current.
No need for BBT, space expansion dark matter or dark energy.
First simple question.Relativity is correct. However. it only works locally.
Do you think that relativity is right (i.e. you can't go faster than C), or do you think that all the measurements and tests done on it somehow failed?
In the article it is stated clearly -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-lightWhy is it so difficult for all of you to understand that simple idea
"According to the current scientific theories, matter is required to travel at slower-than-light (also subluminal or STL) speed with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region. "
So, they specifically claim - with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region.
Relativity works locally!!!!
Yep, I was right. You didn't understand it!I read again the following article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#461f31b5cb5f
Not even a single word about space expansion.
They clearly discuss about galaxies expansions (I have found 15 times the word - galaxies).
So, please, why are you so sure that it is not about galaxies expansion but about space expansion?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/05/2020 16:43:09
So, please, why are you so sure that it is not about galaxies expansion but about space expansion?
Because I actually understand it. I will explain it one time and one time only. If you don't get it after that, then too bad. Light takes time to travel through space. The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding. That extra spread makes distant galaxies look larger than they would if space was not expanding. If the galaxies were simply moving away from us and space was not expanding, then the apparent size of those galaxies would always be smaller the further away from us they are.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 17:33:33
The rocket galaxies knowledge is very simple and natural.And wrong, because it violates relativity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 17:39:45
Relativity is correct. However. it only works locally.In reality, relativity has been demonstrated to work on an intergalactic scale.
You are wrong. I already explained this to you.
Why don't you take it on board?
Why is it so difficult for all of you to understand that simple ideaBecause the observations show that it works on a huge - at least intergalactic- scale.
Relativity works locally!!!!
Why can't you accept this fact?
I read again the following article:Keep reading it until you spot these.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#461f31b5cb5f
Not even a single word about space expansion.
"Do ancient galaxies appear larger to us than they really were, due to the expansion of the Universe? If so, then by how much?"
"the Universe itself is expanding,"
" regardless of the Universe's expansion. A wide suite of evidence supports this cosmic picture, but this ever-changing expansion rate aff..."
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 17:43:02
Thanks for your great example.Yes, so if you saw it travelling above the speed of sound- i.e. at more than its top speed, you would know that it was being carried along by something else.
It is all about Knowledge.
If you know that a ship or boat could carry a turbo jet engine boosted by rocket power, than you should know that it could lift itself over the water and fly at almost the speed of sound.
It doesn't matter what the top speed is, or what sort of engine it has , what matters is that it can't go faster than the top speed.
That's what "top" means in this context.
Did you not understand that?
Thanks for making my point for me
The stuff about indians seems... let's say "confused".
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 17:45:26
Not even a single word about space expansion.I didn't see any mention of the expansion of galaxies. Just lots of talk about an expanding universe.
They clearly discuss about galaxies expansions (I have found 15 times the word - galaxies).
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 18:00:13
One means to make something look bigger the other means to make it actually bigger.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/05/2020 17:05:11
The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.Yes, your message is very clear.
However, I still don't understand why do you insist that only the expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.
Do you agree that the expansion in space can't generate even one photon of light?
Actually, we have already agreed that we can't see any expansion in space. We only see the expansion in galaxies.
So, why is it so important to assume that the expansion in galaxies is due to the space expansion and not due to the expansion in galaxies?
Without galaxies, it is clear that we won't get any sort of photon of light.
So, all the photons are ejected from the galaxies.
Therefore, in any sort of theory, we should agree that we monitor the photons that had been ejected from the galaxy itself and not from the space expansion.
Actually the only key difference between the two theories is that in the space expansion theory - the space itself carry the galaxies, while in the galaxies expansion theory - the galaxies are moving though the space.
Please also remember that both theories fully meet Hubble law and constant.
In the article they even give an example of the following galaxy:
"It might surprise you to learn that the most distant galaxy we've ever observed, GN-z11, actually appears twice as large as a similarly sized galaxy that's only half the distance away from us. The farther away we look, beyond a specific critical distance, objects actually appear larger the farther away they get."
So, our scientists clearly verify that far away galaxy as it is expanding away from us at ultra high velocity. However, not even one word about expansion in space.
Hence, why are you so sure that if this galaxy was expensing away exactly at its current velocity and holding exactly the same features that we observe, its photons of light shouldn't get spread further apart if it was moving through the space??
In other words - If this galaxy is moving through the space - its photons of light shouldn't get spread further apart
While if it is carried by the space expansion than its photons of light should get spread further apart.
Can you please prove this statement?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2020 18:23:16
We only see the expansion in galaxies.No. Galaxies are gravitationally bound. They don't expand.
What we see is an expansion of teh space between the galaxies.
Without galaxies, it is clear that we won't get any sort of photon of light.No. That isn't clear at all.
In fact it's wrong.
We got lots of photons from the formation of hydrogen in the early hot dense universe.
So, all the photons are ejected from the galaxies.No; see above
Therefore, in any sort of theory, we should agree that we monitor the photons that had been ejected from the galaxy itself and not from the space expansion.Nobody said the photoones were "ejected... from the space expansion."
You made that up.
Please also remember that both theories fully meet Hubble law and constant.Please remember that one of them breaches relativity.
So, our scientists clearly verify that far away galaxy as it is expanding away from us at ultra high velocity. However, not even one word about expansion in space.OK, so you didn't understand it.
The reason why it looks twice as big is that the expansion of space acts a bit like a magnifying glass.
So, our scientists clearly verify that far away galaxy as it is expanding away from us at ultra high velocity. However, not even one word about expansion in space.And not a single word about what they had for breakfast that day, because you don't include obvious or irrelevant stuff in every paragraph.
In other words - If this galaxy is moving through the space - its photons of light shouldn't get spread further apartThat's the wrong way of looking at it.
While if it is carried by the space expansion than its photons of light should get spread further apart.
Can you please prove this statement?
We see that the galaxy is oddly magnified.
If the light is just travelling through space, why would the photons be spread out in this way (in addition to the inverse square law)?
One alternative that makes sense is that teh expanding universe is responsible (among other things) for the incongruous large size of this galaxy.
Do you have a sensible altarnative explanation?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/05/2020 23:51:12
Yes, your message is very clear.
If it was clear, then why didn't you understand it? If you did, you wouldn't say ridiculous things like:
Do you agree that the expansion in space can't generate even one photon of light?
Hence, why are you so sure that if this galaxy was expensing away exactly at its current velocity and holding exactly the same features that we observe, its photons of light shouldn't get spread further apart if it was moving through the space??
You don't understand even the most basic forms of logic. Maybe go watch a car driving away from you and see if it looks like it's getting larger or smaller with distance.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2020 06:19:22
Maybe go watch a car driving away from you and see if it looks like it's getting larger or smaller with distance.This issue is very clear to me as you have already explained.
In a static, unchanging space, the average angular diameter of galaxies should always fall off the same way with distance. A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small.There is no need to prove the above statement
However, with regards to the following statement:
The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.and
The reason why it looks twice as big is that the expansion of space acts a bit like a magnifying glass.Your messages are very clear. However, how it really works?
The explanation is:
That extra spread makes distant galaxies look larger than they would if space was not expanding.This is something that you need to prove.
Actually, did you read the following answer from Bored chemist:
No. Galaxies are gravitationally bound. They don't expand.
What we see is an expansion of teh space between the galaxies.
Therefore, the space expansion carry/move the galaxies with it, however it doesn't set any sort of expansion on the galaxy itself. ("They don't expand.")
Therefore, the following statement might not be correct: "The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart".
How the the expansion of space itself could cause the photons of light from far away galaxy to get spread further apart while it has no impact on the galaxy itself? (The galaxy don't expand due to the expansion in space)
Please prove that statment.
We see that the galaxy is oddly magnified.Sure, I have a very simple explanation for that.
If the light is just travelling through space, why would the photons be spread out in this way (in addition to the inverse square law)?
One alternative that makes sense is that teh expanding universe is responsible (among other things) for the incongruous large size of this galaxy.
Do you have a sensible altarnative explanation?
It is not due to the space expansion or galaxy expansion.
Please forget the expansion!
It is all about the paths of light, as affected by black hole curvature.
https://galileospendulum.org/2011/06/29/black-holes-dont-suck/
It is stated that:
Outside the event horizon, paths of light are curved by the black hole’s gravity, but the light can continue on its merry way;
So, the BH acts a bit like a magnifying glass with its ability to spread apart the photons of light.
There are many BH in our universe.
However, if we look at a relativity close distance, the chance that the light would cross a BH is quite low.
Therefore, at a relatively low distance we see that A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small.
However, as we look further away, the light is deflected by more and more BHs.
Therefore, the light from the furthest galaxy is getting deflected by the maximal no of BHs.
Therefore, we see it so big.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/05/2020 06:22:42
If you had an understanding of basic physics, you would realize why a group of photons is not bound in the same way as the stars in a galaxy are.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2020 11:08:38
If you had an understanding of basic physics, you would realize why a group of photons is not bound in the same way as the stars in a galaxy are.I have quite good knowlage in physics, but I still don't understand how the expansion of space itself causes group of photons of light of far end galaxy to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.
We know clearly that the expansion has no impact on the real size of any galaxy in the Universe. It only expands the space between the galaxies.
So, please, how the expansion between the galaxies in the Universe could cause that group of photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding?
If you claim something, you need to prove it.
I have offered much better explanation for that phenomenon.
It is not based on my imagination. It is real:
https://www.space.com/8830-massive-black-hole-bends-light-magnify-distant-galaxy.html
Massive Black Hole Bends Light to Magnify Distant Galaxy
"A giant black hole spouting energy from inside a galaxy isacting like a cosmic magnifying glass, giving astronomers a clear view of an evenmore distant galaxy behind it."
Why do you reject the proved physics explanation for Black Hole that Bends Light to Magnify Distant Galaxy, while you insist that only the expansion can do it (without any physics backup).
Remember when I said I was only going to explain it once? That was it.I'm ready to accept any real explanation/data/information in the first message. However, please do not assume that I will accept any sort of information without real physics backup.
Sorry, it is our scientists' obligation to use real physics in order to show/prove how the expansion in space could Magnify Distant Galaxy?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2020 12:11:58
Therefore, we see it so big.Except that's not what you see with gravitational lensing.
You typically see a ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
And that phenomenon is quite rare- it has to be lined up properly.
But all very distant objects appear bigger than they should.
So what you are saying is that every very distant galaxy has a perfectly sized and aligned black hole in between us and them, so that it appears magnified.
That's absurd, and I did ask for a sensible explanation, not a magic one.
I have quite good knowlage in physicsWhy don't you use it?
It would have made this thread so much shorter.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2020 19:49:54
Except that's not what you see with gravitational lensing.Yes, I fully agree with you.
You typically see a ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
And that phenomenon is quite rare- it has to be lined up properly.
I have used the idea of BH in order to show that it could Bend Light to Magnify Distant Galaxy.
It is stated:
"An Einstein ring, also known as an Einstein–Chwolson ring or Chwolson ring, is created when light from a galaxy or star passes by a massive object en route to the Earth. Due to gravitational lensing, the light is diverted, making it seem to come from different places. If source, lens, and observer are all aligned, the light appears as a ring."
So, if we use one massive BH it would set a ring.
However, if we will use less massive object as a star it should set a minor bend in the photon of light.
Therefore, in order to get real Magnify of Distant Galaxy we need much more than just one star.
Surprisingly, there is unlimited no. of stars (and BH) in the space between galaxies:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/most-of-stars-and-planets-in-universe.html
"As many as half of all stars in the universe lie in the vast gulfs of space between galaxies, an unexpected discovery made in a new study using NASA rockets."
So, for any star in the galaxy, there is one outside.
Just think about the density of the stars in the space between the galaxies.
Therefore, as we look at a far away galaxy (at any direction) there is good chance that the photon of light need to cross several thousand or even millions of objects as stars or BH.
Those objects magnify the light from Distant Galaxy.
The further the galaxy is located, the more objects the photon of light should cross.
Therefore, the most distant galaxy gets the maximal lights magnify.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2020 19:59:56
Your ideas get sillier every day.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/05/2020 20:22:31
Therefore, at a relatively low distance we see that A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small.
However, as we look further away, the light is deflected by more and more BHs.
Therefore, the light from the furthest galaxy is getting deflected by the maximal no of BHs.
Ha ha ha, wow! This may be just the most desperate ploy of yours I've seen yet.
I have quite good knowlage in physics
A statement that has been continually demonstrated to be wrong.
but I still don't understand how the expansion of space itself causes group of photons of light of far end galaxy to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.
Ah, so you don't understand physics (or even basic logic) as well as you think you do. Are you serious? You really don't understand why an expanding space will cause objects in that space that aren't bound to each other to spread out? What in the world you think the words "expand" and "spread" mean?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2020 05:33:13
Ah, so you don't understand physics (or even basic logic) as well as you think you do. Are you serious? You really don't understand why an expanding space will cause objects in that space that aren't bound to each other to spread out?
Yes I fully understand why the galaxies are expanding/spread out from each other.
However, this is not the issue in our discussion. We discuss about expanding/spreading the light of each galaxy.
What in the world you think the words "expand" and "spread" mean?
Would you kindly advice if you agree with the following:
1. The expansion in the space doesn't expands or spread any individual galaxy in the whole Universe?
2. The expansion in space only expands the space between the galaxies?
If you agree with the above, would you kindly explain how the physics works at the expansion in space theory in order to expand/spread the light of far away galaxy, without expanding/spreading the galaxy itself?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/05/2020 05:40:42
If you agree with the above, would you kindly explain how the physics works at the expansion in space theory in order to expand/spread the light of the galaxy, without expanding/spreading the galaxy itself?
The answer is in reply #368.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2020 05:46:24
If you had an understanding of basic physics, you would realize why a group of photons is not bound in the same way as the stars in a galaxy are.
Would you kindly explain how a group of photons of far away galaxy that its size is fixed (no internal expansion or spreading over time) could expand/spread only based on the expansion in the space between the galaxies.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/05/2020 05:48:56
Would you kindly explain how a group of photons of far away galaxy that its size is fixed (no internal expansion or spreading over time) could expand/spread only based on the expansion in the space between the galaxies.
I honestly cannot believe you are asking me that question. Hmm, I wonder... how could expansion cause a group of objects that aren't bound to each other to spread out? What a mystery!
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2020 06:22:29
I honestly cannot believe you are asking me that question. Hmm, I wonder... how could expansion cause a group of objects that aren't bound to each other to spread out? What a mystery!We claim that the galaxy itself are not affected by the expansion of space.
So, the size of the galaxy is fixed and all the objects in the galaxy are bounded by gravity
Therefore, we can't consider it as a group of objects that aren't bound to each other.
Therefore, HOW the expansion in space between the galaxies could expand the light that is coming from a fixed size far away galaxy?
Please, do you have an answer or not?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/05/2020 06:45:58
Therefore, HOW the expansion in space between the galaxies could expand the light that is coming from a fixed size far away galaxy?
Please, do you have an answer or not?
Are photons bound to each other? Think about the answer to that question and you'll have the answer to the question that you've given me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/05/2020 10:08:11
I think it's slightly subtler than that.Therefore, HOW the expansion in space between the galaxies could expand the light that is coming from a fixed size far away galaxy?
Please, do you have an answer or not?
Are photons bound to each other? Think about the answer to that question and you'll have the answer to the question that you've given me.
Are the photons bound to the galaxies?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/05/2020 18:07:29
Are photons bound to each other? Think about the answer to that question and you'll have the answer to the question that you've given me.Dear Kryptid
We know each other for quite long time.
It is very clear to me that you fully support the BBT and protect whatever our scientists claim.
However, at this discussion, they have a severe mistake.
Therefore, let me explain why I positively sure that the expansion in space can't magnify the light from far end galaxy.
Actually, it should do the opposite.
So, let's assume that we have a light detector that is aimed on a far end galaxy.
Its mission is to detect photons that the beam of light carries from that far end galaxy.
Let's also assume that there are no expansion in space and no massive objects.
Hence, based on the size of the detector and its sensitivity it can detect x no of photons from this far end galaxy.
Now, let's see the impact of the following:
1. Massive objects - The massive objects acts as a glass. It bends the beam of light
Therefore, more photons of light get to our detector. This activity magnifies that far end galaxy.
2. Expansion in space -
With regards to your question: Are photons bound to each other. The answer is: no.
The expansion in space actually separate/expand the photons from each other. Therefore, less photons get to our detector. The outcome is the opposite from magnify.
So, the expansion in space should reduce the no of photons of light that the detector gets from the far end galaxy.
Therefore, I wonder how it could be that our scientists claim that the expansion in space could increase the light from a far end galaxy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2020 18:20:08
Therefore, I wonder how it could be that our scientists claim that the expansion in space could increase the light from a far end galaxy.Because they understand that "brightness" is different from "size".
More photons reaching the detector is a brighter image, not a bigger one.
Therefore, less photons get to our detector.OK, ask a photographer what happens to the brightness of an image when you magnify the image by using a longer lens (of the same diameter) .
Brighter images mean smaller images.
So, you simply don't understand what is a really simple idea.
Get a piece of rubber sheeting, draw a picture of a galaxy on it.
Stretch the rubber sheet.
The picture gets bigger.
How do you not understand that?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/05/2020 20:52:17
It is very clear to me that you fully support the BBT and protect whatever our scientists claim.
The Big Bang theory seems to be the best thing we have at the moment. It may still have flaws (although not any that you've pointed out. Your arguments are all based on straw-men), and it's always possible that a better theory will be developed in the future.
Therefore, I wonder how it could be that our scientists claim that the expansion in space could increase the light from a far end galaxy.
Bored Chemist explained it. You have, once again, straw-manned the argument.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2020 21:33:19
It is very clear to me that you fully support the BBT and protect whatever our scientists claim.There's nothing special about Kryptis or me.
It's not us supporting the BBT.
We couldn't do that.
The evidence, on the other hand, can, and does, support it.
You need to recognise that it isn't the people posting here that you disagree with.
You are picking an argument with reality.
There's only one way that ends.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2020 04:26:17
Get a piece of rubber sheeting, draw a picture of a galaxy on it.Thanks for your excellent example.
Stretch the rubber sheet.
The picture gets bigger.
So, we have a picture of a galaxy on a rubber sheet (or universe).
We have already found that the size of the universe after the inflation was 10,000Ly
After 13 BY the observable universe had been expanded to 96 BLY.
Therefore, based on the idea a rubber sheet, a picture of the 10,000 Ly of the whole early universe had been stretched after 13BY to much bigger picture at a size of 96BLY.
Based on this key understanding, let's go back to the picture of a far end galaxy at a size of 10,000Ly which is located at a distance of 13BLY away.
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at the size of 10,000 Ly at a distance of 13 BLY.
Let's also assume that based on the size of our light detector on earth (without the expansion impact) we should detect 10,000 photons from this far end galaxy.
However, due to the expansion, it is clear that the picture of this galaxy (on a rubber universe) should stretch significantly.
Just to understand the impact of the expansion on the rubber sheet.
We start with a picture of a galaxy at a radius of 10,000Ly and we end after 13 BY at much bigger picture at a size of 96BLY
The ratio is : 10 to 96 * 10^6, or 1 : 9,600,000
If we want to make it easy we can assume that the ratio is:
1: 10,000,000
So, the picture of the far away galaxy gets bigger by 10,000,000 times due to the stretch of the expansion in space.
However, the size of our detector is fixed.
Therefore, as the picture of the galaxy gets bigger, less photons gets to our light detector.
Remember the following message:
Let's also assume that based on the size of our light detector on earth (without the expansion impact) we should detect 10,000 photons from this far end galaxy.
Now due to the expansion in the picture of the far end galaxy, we get in our detector only one photon instead of 10,000,000
Therefore, with this ration, we should get 0.001 photon from the far end galaxy (instead of 10,000 photons without the expansion)
Therefore, it is clearly that we can't detect this galaxy at all.
Conclusions -
As the picture of the far end galaxy gets bigger due to the expansion in space, less photons gets to our limited size detector in the Earth. Therefore, after a stretch of almost 10,000,000 times, we shouldn't detect any photon of light from a far end galaxy.
However, as we clearly see so many galaxies from the far end universe, it proves that there is no expansion in space!!!
Post by: Kryptid on 20/05/2020 05:51:00
Let's also assume that based on the size of our light detector on earth (without the expansion impact) we should detect 10,000 photons from this far end galaxy.
Very, very bad assumption. You really are hopeless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2020 09:47:47
Remember the following message:
Let's also assume that based on the size of our light detector on earth (without the expansion impact) we should detect 10,000 photons from this far end galaxy.
Now due to the expansion in the picture of the far end galaxy, we get in our detector only one photon instead of 10,000,000
Therefore, with this ration, we should get 0.001 photon from the far end galaxy (instead of 10,000 photons without the expansion)
Therefore, it is clearly that we can't detect this galaxy at all.
You have just worked out why we need big telescopes and long exposures to take these pictures.
That's OK, we have big telescopes and take long exposures.
Why do you see this as a problem?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2020 17:34:19
You have just worked out why we need big telescopes and long exposures to take these pictures.
That's OK, we have big telescopes and take long exposures.
Why do you see this as a problem?
It isn't an issue of the size of the telescopes or the exposure time.
We can use any telescope that we wish.
However, the expansion in space should decrease the detected intensity of light from any far away galaxy.
The explanation is as follow:
https://www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_intensity_decrease_with_the_square_of_the_distance_from_a_point_source
Why does the intensity decrease with the square of the distance from a point source?
Intensity of light is defined as energy per unit area. As we move away from the light point source, the area over which the energy of light distributes is generally spherical or hemispherical. The area of a sphere or hemisphere increases proportional to the square of radius, where the radius in this case is the distance from the point source. Thus Intensity of light, which is inversely proportional to area, decreases with the square of distance.
Now, with regards to the expansion in space –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
"The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time"
Therefore, due to the expansion in space, it should take longer time for the light to get to our telescope or light detector.
That increasing time is equal to increasing distance or radius.
If we eliminate the impact of the expansion in space, it is clear that a galaxy that is located at a distance/radius of 1 BLY should take exactly 1By to get to our light detector.
However, due to the expansion it should take it significantly longer time.
Longer time (at the speed of light) means longer radius.
So, the expansion in space is actually increasing the radius over time due to the expansion process.
We already know that the intensity of light, which is inversely proportional to area, decreases with the square of distance/radius.
In other words, the expansion in space is increasing the radius over time and in the same token it is also decreasing the intensity of light from a far away galaxy.
Therefore, how could you both support a theory which fully contradicts clear science law???
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2020 17:54:15
However, the expansion in space should decrease the detected intensity of light from any far away galaxy.
Nobody cares about the intensity.
That is not what defines the size of something.
Does your house get smaller when it's only lit by the moon?
If the source isn't bright enough to see properly then, as I said, you can use a bigger telescope, or a longer exposure time.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2020 16:31:10
Nobody cares about the intensity.The article actually confirms my understanding:
That is not what defines the size of something.
Does your house get smaller when it's only lit by the moon?
If the source isn't bright enough to see properly then, as I said, you can use a bigger telescope, or a longer exposure time.
It is stated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#586dda7cb5fc
If we had an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the angular scale would get progressively smaller in a quantitatively different fashion, but the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
So, they clearly claim that in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
In all my explanations I have only focused on a Universe with nothing but matter in it.
However, they also add the following:
But what we actually have is a Universe filled with dark energy, the angular scale does something very different. The farther away you look, the same-sized object looks smaller and smaller, but only to a point. Beyond that point, that object will actually start to look bigger again."
So, it is not the expansion in space activity that makes a further away galaxy to look as a bigger sized one, but it is due to the dark energy that is responsible for that activity.
I hope that we all agree with that!!!
If so, you all have to accept the idea that the expansion in space doesn't contribute any impact on the size of the far end galaxy
It is all about dark energy.
Now we need to understand how the dark energy works.
In this article they don't offer any indication how the dark energy increases the image of a far away galaxy.
Actually, the only relevant information about the dark energy is as follow:
"In the Universe we actually have — which is composed of 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, 5% normal matter and about 0.01% radiation — you can determine that objects will appear smaller the farther away they get, but then the physics of the expanding Universe magnifies them once again the farther away you look."
However, they don't give any explanation how the dark matter really works in order to make a far end galaxy to looks bigger.
At the end they come back again to the expansion Universe:
"Even without gravitational lensing, the expanding Universe alone makes ultra-distant galaxies appear larger to our eyes."
Conclusions:
There is a severe contradiction in this article.
In one hand it is stated clearly that the expansion in space by itself in a Universe with only real matter won't be able to increase the image of a far end galaxy.
Then it is stated that only the dark matter can do it, while they don't offer any real explanation for that assumption.
At the end they come back to the idea of universe expansion.
Sorry - as they didn't offer any explanation about the impact of the dark energy, than this article is actually none relevant!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2020 18:02:26
So, it is not the expansion in space activity that makes a further away galaxy to look as a bigger sized one, but it is due to the dark energy that is responsible for that activity.I don't know if you agree with it.
I hope that we all agree with that!!!
Do you understand that what the dark energy does is make the rate of expansion variable?
(That wouldn't happen in a universe with just matter in it)
In doing so it creates a universe where more expansion (in early epochs makes) the apparent size of things dependent on distance.
Do you understand that?
More distant things are older, so the images of them have had more time for the space to be stretched. So they are stretched out more, so they look bigger.
Do you understand that?
What you have said is analogous to "it's not acceleration that makes a car go faster, it's the engine".
Well, yes and no. But it shows that you don't understand how it works.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2020 19:11:45
Do you understand that what the dark energy does is make the rate of expansion variable?Is there a possibility for expansion without dark energy?
However, what do you understand from the following statement?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#586dda7cb5fcDo you agree that:
If we had an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the angular scale would get progressively smaller in a quantitatively different fashion, but the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
they clearly claim that in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."I really don't understand the logic.
If "what the dark energy does is make the rate of expansion variable" than why they claim that "in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
Does it mean that if the rate of expansion is not variable than the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object?
So, only if rate of expansion is variable we actually observe that the further galaxy looks bigger?
Can you explain/prove how this phenomenon works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2020 23:04:45
Is there a possibility for expansion without dark energy?Yes.
"Do you agree that:..."
Yes.
If "what the dark energy does is make the rate of expansion variable" than why they claim that "in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
Because a universe with only matter in it is different from a universe with matter and also dark energy.
Like a pizza with cheese and ham is different from a pizza with only cheese.
I really don't understand the logic.You just told everyone that you are not clever enough to work in a fast food joint.
You previously implied you were an engineer.
I know which I believe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2020 04:56:59
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:11:45Yes.
Is there a possibility for expansion without dark energy?
So, with or without dark energy there will be expansion in space.
However, based on the following statement:
"If we had an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the angular scale would get progressively smaller in a quantitatively different fashion, but the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
It is clear that in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the farther away you look, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
Because a universe with only matter in it is different from a universe with matter and also dark energy.
Like a pizza with cheese and ham is different from a pizza with only cheese.
So please, try to explain this difference:
Why in a universe with dark energy it s expected that - the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would look bigger than a closer version of the same object", while in a universe with the same expansion in space but without dark Energy, the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2020 12:01:15
Why in a universe with dark energy it s expected that - the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would look bigger than a closer version of the same object"
So please, try to explain this difference:
Again?
OK.
More distant things are older, so the images of them have had more time for the space to be stretched. So they are stretched out more, so they look bigger.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2020 19:57:36
You claim that:
All dark energy does is make those dotted worldlines curved. They'd be straight without dark energy. You'll notice that the curvature of those lines make almost no difference. The dark energy causes an event horizon to form (not in this picture, but I have others) that would not exist with inertial expansion.However, in the following article the dark energy is a key element as stated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#586dda7cb5fcSo can you please explain the contradiction?
If we had an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the angular scale would get progressively smaller in a quantitatively different fashion, but the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
So, they clearly claim that in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
In all my explanations I have only focused on a Universe with nothing but matter in it.
However, they also add the following:
But what we actually have is a Universe filled with dark energy; the angular scale does something very different. The farther away you look, the same-sized object looks smaller and smaller, but only to a point. Beyond that point, that object will actually start to look bigger again."
So, it is not the expansion in space activity that makes a further away galaxy to look as a bigger sized one, but it is due to the dark energy that is responsible for that activity.
They clearly claim that without dark energy - "in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
Therefore, why they insist that the dark energy is mandatory requested in order to make a further away galaxy to look as a bigger sized one, while you claim that the impact of the dark energy is quite neglected and we should also get the same impact even without the dark energy.
So, do you claim that there is an error in this article?
Post by: Halc on 23/05/2020 20:52:32
So, they clearly claim that in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object.I'm not claiming anything different. I notice you cut away the part where I stated that things look bigger because they were closer, and left the part about how dark energy causes those worldlines to curve differently (not 'straight' as originally posted) in Earth's frame.
Things that were nearby look bigger (wider angle) than similar size objects that were further away. If Ethan is claiming that this isn't true with dark energy present, then I might have issues, but I don't see your quoted bit saying that. I mean, an apple held 20 cm from my fact appears larger than one at arms length. If Ethan claims that the latter apple should look larger because there is dark energy, then he's just wrong. I don't see him claiming this.
Quote
But what we actually have is a Universe filled with dark energy; the angular scale does something very different. The farther away you look, the same-sized object looks smaller and smaller, but only to a point. Beyond that point, that object will actually start to look bigger again."My post said that if it appears bigger, we're seeing something when it was closer, not further away. I don't see Ethan claiming otherwise. I see him claiming that the further you look in time (not in space), there's a point after which older objects were actually closer and thus appear larger. This is entirely consistent with my post.
Quote
Therefore, why they insist that the dark energy is mandatory requested in order to make a further away galaxy to look as a bigger sized oneI see no such insistence in what you quoted. Ethan says something about a universe 'with nothing but matter in it', which, if you read, means without radiation and dark energy'. Without radiation, galaxies would not 'appear' as anything since there would be no light, so Ethan is technically wrong in how galaxies would 'appear' with nothing but matter.
Anyway, I see no statement that this effect would not be true without dark energy, although he says the dark energy case makes the scaling 'very different', so I agree the hint is there. This seems to be self inconsistency since in his pictures just above that statement, every case has the universe smaller in the far past and thus similar sized objects would occupy a larger field of view. To quote him:
"the same sized object, billions of years ago, took up a greater proportion of the Universe's scale than the same object does at later times." which is true of each diagram, meaning that really distant things look larger in all four of his cases, not just the accelerating one.
What Ethan says (and means) is that things would scale in a 'quantitatively different manner', meaning we see something different than what we would expect without accelerated expansion, which is how we learned of the acceleration in the first place. Dark energy is one explanation for this acceleration, and not the only one.
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/05/2020 04:21:21
Thanks for the explanation about the dark energy, although in the article they don't say anything about "radiation".QuoteTherefore, why they insist that the dark energy is mandatory requested in order to make a further away galaxy to look as a bigger sized oneI see no such insistence in what you quoted. Ethan says something about a universe 'with nothing but matter in it', which, if you read, means without radiation and dark energy'. Without radiation, galaxies would not 'appear' as anything since there would be no light, so Ethan is technically wrong in how galaxies would 'appear' with nothing but matter.
Anyway, I see no statement that this effect would not be true without dark energy, although he says the dark energy case makes the scaling 'very different', so I agree the hint is there. This seems to be self inconsistency since in his pictures just above that statement, every case has the universe smaller in the far past and thus similar sized objects would occupy a larger field of view. To quote him:
"the same sized object, billions of years ago, took up a greater proportion of the Universe's scale than the same object does at later times." which is true of each diagram, meaning that really distant things look larger in all four of his cases, not just the accelerating one.
What Ethan says (and means) is that things would scale in a 'quantitatively different manner', meaning we see something different than what we would expect without accelerated expansion, which is how we learned of the acceleration in the first place. Dark energy is one explanation for this acceleration, and not the only one.
In any case, I would like to focus on your following explanation:
My post said that if it appears bigger, we're seeing something when it was closer, not further away. I don't see Ethan claiming otherwise. I see him claiming that the further you look in time (not in space), there's a point after which older objects were actually closer and thus appear larger. This is entirely consistent with my post.
Well, I can agree that if a galaxy is closer, (not further away) than it should appear bigger.
However, I still don't understand why if it was closer 13BY ago, but due to the expansion its emitted photons of light had to cross very long distance (13BLY) than it also should appear bigger?
The science law is very clear
https://www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_intensity_decrease_with_the_square_of_the_distance_from_a_point_source
Why does the intensity decrease with the square of the distance from a point source?
Intensity of light is defined as energy per unit area. As we move away from the light point source, the area over which the energy of light distributes is generally spherical or hemispherical. The area of a sphere or hemisphere increases proportional to the square of radius, where the radius in this case is the distance from the point source. Thus Intensity of light, which is inversely proportional to area, decreases with the square of distance.
So, we must understand the total distance that the emitted photon of light from that galaxy had to cross over time.
We are focusing on a very further away galaxy in our visible Universe, therefore, the idea that 13BY ago this galaxy was closer won't helpץ
Don't you agree that if the photon of light from this galaxy that 13 BY ago was located next to us, had to cross a distance of 13 BLY than it should appear much smaller today?
In any case, if you wish to show that: "if it appears bigger, we're seeing something when it was closer, not further away.", than you have to show why the photons of light from that far away galaxy (let's assume at a distance of 13BLYaway) should cross shorter distance (let's assume from a galaxy at a distance of only 10BLY away) due to the expansion in space and dark energy.
With regards to the space - time diagram that you have offered:
This diagram represents only the observable universe of about 46BLY.
However, there is a chance that our real universe is bigger. It might even be infinite.
We have already discussed this issue in the past.
So, don't you agree that the space time diagram for a bigger universe (or even infinite Universe) should be quite different from this diagram?
Actually, I have set a simple calculation which can prove that our real universe should be much bigger that this 46BLY.
We clearly see today a minimal visible universe of 13 BLY.
So, we must be located at a sphere that represents a maximal radius of 46BLY-13BLY = 33BLY in this observable universe.
The chance to be in this 33BLY radius sphere is:
33^3 / 46^3 = 35937 / 97336 = 0.369 or about 1:3
Therefore, if our real universe was only 46BLY, the chance that we could see up to a minimal distance of 13BLY in any direction is 1:3.
That by itself proves that our real universe must be much bigger than this 46BLY
Therefore, the assumption based on that time space diagram might be wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/05/2020 08:51:06
The science law is very clearLike many "laws" in physics, it isn't universally true.
https://www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_intensity_decrease_with_the_square_of_the_distance_from_a_point_source
Why does the intensity decrease with the square of the distance from a point source?
Intensity of light is defined as energy per unit area. As we move away from the light point source, the area over which the energy of light distributes is generally spherical or hemispherical. The area of a sphere or hemisphere increases proportional to the square of radius, where the radius in this case is the distance from the point source. Thus Intensity of light, which is inversely proportional to area, decreases with the square of distance.
For example, light travelling down a fibre optic cable does not follow the inverse square law.
Because we know the inverse square law doesn't always work, there's no way to use it to say that some other observation is impossible.
Post by: Halc on 26/05/2020 17:33:30
Thanks for the explanation about the dark energy, although in the article they don't say anything about "radiation".The article talked about a universe consisting of only matter, different from the actual list:
Quote from: Ethan
But if your Universe is evolving in shape and size over time — which our expanding Universe consisting of radiation, matter, and dark energy most definitely is — you have to take that into account as well.
Quote
In any case, I would like to focus on your following explanation:Then focus on it, instead of going off on a different track.
Quote
Well, I can agree that if a galaxy is closer, (not further away) than it should appear bigger.Good. That was the gist of my explanation.
Quote
However, I still don't understand why if it was closer 13BY ago, but due to the expansion its emitted photons of light had to cross very long distance (13BLY) than it also should appear bigger?The distance the light travels is pretty meaningless without an exact specification of how that distance is measured. Point is, that light was emitted from fairly close by, and the apparent size of the object can be directly computed from that without consideration of how much time it takes. When I compute the apparent size (in arseconds) of the moon, I don't need to worry about how long light takes to make the trip or if the moon has moved somewhere else while the light was getting here. It is simple trigonometry.
Quote
The science law is very clearHere you go completely off topic. I said nothing about intensity, and as B-C points out, you quote a law that is not universally true. It is in fact a Newtonian law that assumes locality and fixed (not receding) light sources. Neither condition is met in this instance, and general relativity must be invoked to do an intensity calculation for this scenario.
https://www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_intensity_decrease_with_the_square_of_the_distance_from_a_point_source
Why does the intensity decrease with the square of the distance from a point source?
Quote
Intensity of light is defined as energy per unit area.Oops. You don't even know what it is. Anyway, off topic, so it doesn't matter.
Quote
So, we must understand the total distance that the emitted photon of light from that galaxy had to cross over time.It is very dependent on how that distance is measured, so there's no meaningful answer to this without that definition. I defined the distance between here and where the light was emitted as proper distance in the comoving coordinate system (scaled for normal distance and time) as per my linked graph in post 396. The distance is marked off at the bottom of the chart. Where (or how long) the light traveled between here and there is irrelevant to the apparent size of the galaxy since the apparent size is not a function of either of those things, and where that galaxy is 'now' is also irrelevant since I'm not looking at light from where it is now, and yet it is on this that you choose to focus, having this naive intuition that we see things where they are now because that is a good approximation when you're looking at a tree.
Quote
Don't you agree that if the photon of light from this galaxy that 13 BY ago was located next to us, had to cross a distance of 13 BLY than it should appear much smaller today?You ignore the logic that shows this to result in a contradiction.
Quote
With regards to the space - time diagram that you have offered:No. The red line represents everything that can currently be observed, but the 'observable universe' isn't defined as 'all events that we can currently see', but instead more like 'all events that are on comoving worldlines that include any events that can ever have had a causal effect on us today', and some events in that diagram are not part of that set, and a great deal that are in that set are not in the diagram. The proper distance scale of that picture only goes out to 10 BLY, and the radius of the observable universe is about 4.6 times that distance. The diagram does show the boundary of the observable universe on the lower left, labelled 'today's horizon', not to be confused with the event horizon which is not depicted in that picture.
This diagram represents only the observable universe of about 46BLY.
Quote
So, don't you agree that the space time diagram for a bigger universe (or even infinite Universe) should be quite different from this diagram?It can be extended to the sides as far as you like, which thus can include all the the observable universe and beyond. There's no edge to it. I posted wider (extended upward as well) pictures in other threads, which include items like the event horizon not depicted in my recent post.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2020 16:24:16
Let's take real example about the Farthest Known Galaxy in the Universe Discovered:QuoteSo, we must understand the total distance that the emitted photon of light from that galaxy had to cross over time.It is very dependent on how that distance is measured, so there's no meaningful answer to this without that definition. I defined the distance between here and where the light was emitted as proper distance in the comoving coordinate system (scaled for normal distance and time) as per my linked graph in post 396. The distance is marked off at the bottom of the chart. Where (or how long) the light traveled between here and there is irrelevant to the apparent size of the galaxy since the apparent size is not a function of either of those things, and where that galaxy is 'now' is also irrelevant since I'm not looking at light from where it is now, and yet it is on this that you choose to focus, having this naive intuition that we see things where they are now because that is a good approximation when you're looking at a tree.
https://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html
"The new record holder is the galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away. The universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old, so this galaxy's light has been traveling toward us for almost the whole history of space and time."
The galaxy is about 13.3 billion light-years from Earth, the farthest galaxy yet known, and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang."
If we look to the other direction, we might see other galaxy at a similar distance.
So, in one side we see a galaxy (let's call it galaxy A) at a distance of 13.3 BLY, while on the other side there is other galaxy (galaxy B) at a similar distance from us.
Therefore, we can assume that the distance between galaxy A to galaxy B could be 26.6 BLY.
Now, let's verify if I understand correctly the BBT and the expansion process:
The Big Bang took place about 13.7 BY ago.
We all know that the size of the whole Universe after the inflation was only 10,000 LY.
We also know that it took almost 380 Million years for the atoms to be formed after the Big bang.
Somehow, 420 Millions after the BB (Or only 40 Millions years after the formation of the atoms in the universe), this far away galaxy had already been created.
At that time all the Matter/galaxies in the Universe were located next to each others.
Do we have any idea what was the size of the whole universe at that time?
Actually, at the end of the inflation process the size of the Universe was 10,000 Ly.
So, if we assume that in this time, the size had been increase by 10 times, than the size should be 100,000 MLY.
Let's assume that the Milky Way was there at a distance of 50,000LY away from galaxy A (420 Million years after the BB).
If I understand you correctly, that distance represents the proper distance.
I defined the distance between here and where the light was emitted as proper distance in the comoving coordinate system (scaled for normal distance and time) as per my linked graph in post 396.We clearly know that the light travels at the speed of light. (With or without the impact of the expansion)
Due to the compact size of the early Universe (at the age of 420 MY) it is clear that the impact of the expansion rate at this compact early universe is quite neglected. (74 Km//s per 3MLY).
Therefore, the light from galaxy A should cross a distance of 50,000LY in about 50,000 Year.
So, why it took the light from galaxy A so long time (13.3BY) to get to the Milky Way?
Can you please explain how the proper/commoving distance velocity could force the light to travel 13.3 BLY in order to cross a proper distance of only 50,000 Ly while the impact of expansion rate on the early universe is so low?
I really don't understand the logic in your message.QuoteQuoteYou ignore the logic that shows this to result in a contradiction.
Don't you agree that if the photon of light from this galaxy that 13 BY ago was located next to us, had to cross a distance of 13 BLY than it should appear much smaller today?
OKQuoteHowever, I still don't understand why if it was closer 13BY ago, but due to the expansion its emitted photons of light had to cross very long distance (13BLY) than it also should appear bigger?The distance the light travels is pretty meaningless without an exact specification of how that distance is measured. Point is, that light was emitted from fairly close by, and the apparent size of the object can be directly computed from that without consideration of how much time it takes. When I compute the apparent size (in arseconds) of the moon, I don't need to worry about how long light takes to make the trip or if the moon has moved somewhere else while the light was getting here. It is simple trigonometry.
Let's try to understand:
Point is, that light was emitted from fairly close bySo the light was emitted from a distance of 50,000LY (that was the distance between the Milky way to galaxy A when the universe was 420My old). Proper distance. This is very clear.
and the apparent size of the object can be directly computed from that without consideration of how much time it takes.Why is it? This is totally unclear to me.
I still don't understand why the proper distance can set any sort of impact?
From our point of view we see a galaxy at a distance of 13.3 BLY that its light had traveled for 13.3 BY to get to our earth. With or without the expansion, the total distance is fixed and the total time is fixed.
When I compute the apparent size (in arseconds) of the moon, I don't need to worry about how long light takes to make the trip or if the moon has moved somewhere else while the light was getting here. It is simple trigonometry.Let me use your example about the moon:
It should take the moon light about 1.5 sec to get to earth.
Let's assume that somehow we can use the expansion process to move the moon away from us so fast that the next time that we get its light is after it gets to a distance of 1LY away and 1Y from now.
So, do you consider that at that moment that we see again the moon, we should see it at the same shape as we see it today?
There is no fiber optics in the open space.
If a light travels in space for 13.3 BY and cross 13.3 BLY, why it can't work according to the square law?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/05/2020 19:44:52
There is no fiber optics in the open space.Why did you say that?
It's not as if anyone had said that there was.
Post by: Halc on 28/05/2020 20:13:05
Let's take real example about the Farthest Known Galaxy in the Universe Discovered:Get with the program Dave. That's 8 year old news. GN-z11 is further than that one.
https://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html
Quote
"The new record holder is the galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away."Cute. They're measuring distance using 'light travel distance' which is a practically useless value for any purpose except perhaps obfuscation, which is of course why you're selected this article. Funny how the visible universe is said to be about 90 BLY in diameter despite this being about the furthest object. Well, it turns out the 90 BLY distance is a statement of current proper distance, not light travel distance.
Here's a link concerning why light-travel distance shouldn't be used:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
Quote
So, in one side we see a galaxy (let's call it galaxy A) at a distance of 13.3 BLY, while on the other side there is other galaxy (galaxy B) at a similar distance from us.Using light travel distance, yes.
Therefore, we can assume that the distance between galaxy A to galaxy B could be 26.6 BLY.
Quote
We all know that the size of the whole Universe after the inflation was only 10,000 LY.Reference please. I'm not buying that one.
Quote
We also know that it took almost 380 Million years for the atoms to be formed after the Big bang.Off by 3 orders of magnitude. Get your facts straight.
Quote
Let's assume that the Milky Way was there at a distance of 50,000LY away from galaxy A (420 Million years after the BB).I made no mention of galaxy A, but divide the two figures and you get gA increasing its proper distance from us at a pace of 0.00012c. Galaxy A, holding that pace (which it wouldn't due to the mutual attraction between us and them), would be closer than Andromeda today, and due to attraction, would in fact have resulted in the merger of us and them by now.
If I understand you correctly, that distance represents the proper distance.
Quote
We clearly know that the light travels at the speed of light. (With or without the impact of the expansion)Clearly not. It gets to the moon and is reflected back in less time than the distance traveled divided by c. Light moves locally at the speed of light. The moon is not local.
Again, as B-C points out, don't use laws that are not universally true in situations where that law does not apply.
Quote
Due to the compact size of the early Universe (at the age of 420 MY) it is clear that the impact of the expansion rate at this compact early universe is quite neglected. (74 Km//s per 3MLY).Galaxy A is so close by that the difference in the way it is measured is the same to 4 digits, so that's almost true.
Therefore, the light from galaxy A should cross a distance of 50,000LY in about 50,000 Year.
Quote
So, why it took the light from galaxy A so long time (13.3BY) to get to the Milky Way?It didn't. Galaxy A is already part of the Milky Way.
Quote
Can you please explain how the proper/commoving distance velocity could force the light to travel 13.3 BLY in order to cross a proper distance of only 50,000It doesn't. It took close to 50000 years, assuming it is meaningful for two things to be 50 KLY apart when at least one of them is (currently) twice that size.
Quote
However, I still don't understand why if it was closer 13BY ago, but due to the expansion its emitted photons of light had to cross very long distance (13BLY) than it also should appear bigger?Error: Equivocation of light travel distance with proper distance.
Quote
So the light was emitted from a distance of 50,000LY (that was the distance between the Milky way to galaxy A when the universe was 420My old). Proper distance. This is very clear.Your numbers, not mine. Assuming these are point objects, the light would have arrived at the Milky Way at year ~420,050,001, which is long ago, which is why we can't see that emitted light today.
Perhaps your example could be real one like MACS0647-JD which was much further away than 50,000 LY at age 420 MY. More like 3 billion LY away, according to the limited resolution of my picture. That event is on our current light cone. Your Galaxy A is not.
Quote
Again, simple geometry. Consider several such round objects arranged in a ring so their edges touch, and at that distance, and compute the angle that they would appear from the center of that ring. That angle cannot change over time. Expansion of space does not add new degrees to the 360 that make up a circle.Quote from: Halcand the apparent size of the object can be directly computed from that without consideration of how much time it takes.Why is it? This is totally unclear to me.
Think about it instead of just dismissing it because you already know a different answer.
Suppose there are 19 circular objects of size about 1 BLY diameter, each 3 BLY distant, with edges touching. How large would they appear (in degrees?). It's not hard.
Quote
I still don't understand why the proper distance can set any sort of impact?And yet you go on making assertions about things about which you admit your understanding is lacking.
Quote
From our point of view we see a galaxy at a distance of 13.3 BLY that its light had traveled for 13.3 BY to get to our earth. With or without the expansion, the total distance is fixed and the total time is fixed.The apparent size of something is in no way a function of its light travel distance. I told you the figure was meaningless for anything useful.
Quote
It should take the moon light about 1.5 sec to get to earth.You make it sound like the moon blinks off, and then on again when it's completely somewhere else.
Let's assume that somehow we can use the expansion process to move the moon away from us so fast that the next time that we get its light is after it gets to a distance of 1LY away and 1Y from now.
Your numbers are unreasonable. If expansion is that severe, the universe would be 1.5 seconds old, and there would be nothing to see at all.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/05/2020 06:29:36
Here's a link concerning why light-travel distance shouldn't be used:In this article it is stated:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
" This has one simple property: the distance in light years is never greater than the age of the Universe in years, avoiding at least one appearance of speeds greater than the speed of light."
However, you have just confirmed that the distance between two galaxies based on light travel distance is 26.6 BLY:
In one hand our scientists claim:QuoteSo, in one side we see a galaxy (let's call it galaxy A) at a distance of 13.3 BLY, while on the other side there is other galaxy (galaxy B) at a similar distance from us.Using light travel distance, yes.
Therefore, we can assume that the distance between galaxy A to galaxy B could be 26.6 BLY.
"The redshift z is usually the only number in the whole story that is unambiguous and likely to be correct."
So, if there is something that is correct by 100% - it is the redshift.
They even add that we can easily calculate the distance from a shift in a sound:
"If an SR-71 blackbird flies over at Mach 3 and you hear the sound 30 seconds later, then answer to the question "How far away is it?" is clearly not 30 "sound seconds" or 10 km."
They also add
"he Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
Therefore, without an edge and in order to meet the requirement to homogeneous and isotropic it actually must be infinite or at least very, very big. Much bigger than that 92BLY.
At that big size it is clear that galaxies could move away from each other faster than the speed of light.
They actually confirm it by the following:
"Distances greater than speed of light times the age of the Universe are commonplace."
However, they add the following: "But a uniform grid in the Universe shown at left below is very non-uniform when plotted using the light travel time distance, as shown at right below"
So, their main problem is how they fit all of it in a Universe with a limited age of only 13.8 BY.
Why is it so impossible mission for our scientists to assume that the universe could be older than 13.8BLY?
How could they ignore the real meaning of redshift while they clearly claim that: "The redshift z is usually the only number in the whole story that is unambiguous and likely to be correct."
If they claim that redshift is the only number that is really correct, than this Number should be used for Travel Time Distance!!!
If there is a contradiction between the BBT to the redshift, than the redshift must win.
The BBT must explain the redshift and not the other way.
If based on the redshift "the distance in light years is greater than the age of the Universe in years" than something must be wrong with the BBT.
Our scientists don't have to fix the redshift. They have to fix the BBT!!!
In the article it is even stated that by using the redshift for light travel time distance we get disagrees with the Hubble law:
"The Hubble law is satisfied exactly for "distance now", or metric radial distance. In fact the Hubble law with time variable Hubble parameter is satisfied exactly at all times by the metric radial distance D(t) which is the spatial separation at the common time t, so
"velocity" = dD/dt = H(t)D(t).
This is not true for the light travel time distance. The rate of change of the light travel time distance with observation time is always
dDltt/dt = cz/(1+z)
which generally disagrees with the Hubble law as shown below:
Hence, if it generally disagrees with the Hubble law than they have to understand that there is a problem with Hubble law (not with the redshift!!!)
As the redshift is 100% correct, than we have to offer a valid theory that fully meets our clear observation about the redshift.
As we discuss about a redsfit, I also see other sever contradiction between the redshift and the BBT:
Based on this article we can calculate the light travel time based on the redshift
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
So, if the redshift is 6 than:
The age at redshift z was 0.942 Gyr.
The light travel time was 12.779 Gyr.
If the redshift is 12
The age at redshift z was 0.372 Gyr.
The light travel time was 13.349 Gyr.
So, we can claim that we see the light from two galaxies at the early Universe.
One at the age of 0.942 Gyr while the other at the age of 0.372 Gyr.
Based on the BBT, at that time the universe was quite compact and small.
Therefore, those galaxies were located quite nearby.
However, the difference in their redshift is 12-6 =6.
So, two nearby galaxies in the early universe have already so severe difference in their redshift.
However, based on this calculation we know that the meaning of redshift 6 is:
The light travel time was 12.779 Gyr.
Therefore, if about 13BLY we could stand in one galaxy and monitor the redshift from the other nearby galaxy, we could find that we get a redshift of 6 which equivalent to light travel time of 12.779 Gyr.
So, how could it be that in a maximal early universe age of only one billion years, we could have a light travel time of 12.779 Gyr between two nearby galaxies?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/comparable-size-of-the-observable-universe-immediately-after-inflation.731775/QuoteWe all know that the size of the whole Universe after the inflation was only 10,000 LY.Reference please. I'm not buying that one.
"It is very difficult to quantify the size of the observable universe after inflation ended. We do not know how 'big' it was when inflation started, how rapidly it doubled in size ['inflated'], or how long the inflationary period persisted. Estimates of size after inflation vary wildly. Alan Guth guestimated it was around the size of a marble. Lineweaver estimates the universe grew by a factor of ~10E30 during inflation - re: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305179v1. By that standard, if you assume the observable universe was a planck length prior to inflation, you end up with a size of about 1.6E-05 meters after inflation. If you assume it was the size of a proton, you get a universe of about 1.6E15 meters, or around 1/10 the size of our galaxy. "
So, 1/10 of the milky way is about 10,000LY
Perhaps your example could be real one like MACS0647-JD which was much further away than 50,000 LY at age 420 MY. More like 3 billion LY away, according to the limited resolution of my picture. That event is on our current light cone.You claim that the size of the universe at age 420MY should be 3BLY.
How the expansion process (based on the expansion rate of 74Km/s per 3MLY) could increase the size of the Universe from 10KLY into 3BLY in only 420MY?
Actually, if we increase the early universe at the speed of light, it should get to about 420MLY.
Therefore, in total we need to increase its size at 10 times the speed of light in order to get a 3BLY universe after 420MY.
Is it real?
What about the momentum?
If due to the expansion/inflation we get that kind of size increasing (10 times the speed of light), why it suddenly slow down?
What kind of force slows down that ultra high expansion/inflation rate? Why the Momentum law couldn't keep that rate?
Theoretically, if something is moving away from us faster than the speed of light, while the momentum law is very clear, than how can we ever see again its light?
Actually, if due to the expansion+ inflation any matter/star/galaxy is moving away from us faster that the speed of light, than we shouldn't see it again - never and ever.
So, how could it be that we see those far away galaxies at a distance of 13.3BLY while we surly know that in order to get to this distance, somehow they must move away from us (during the process of the Inflation/expansion) faster than the speed of light.
You make it sound like the moon blinks off, and then on again when it's completely somewhere else.Yes, I fully agree with you.
Your numbers are unreasonable. If expansion is that severe, the universe would be 1.5 seconds old, and there would be nothing to see at all.
When I consider the expansion/inflation process, it sounds like the far end galaxy blinks off (420MY after the BB), and then on again when it's completely somewhere else (at 13.3 BLY away).
This numbers are unreasonable. "If expansion is that severe, the universe would be 1.5 seconds old, and there would be nothing to see at all."
Yes, that exactly what I think about the unreasonable inflation expansion of the early universe.
So, if the story of the early inflation + expansion was correct, we shouldn't see almost no galaxy in the whole universe.
The other issue is the formation of Atoms/Stars/galaxies.
How can we get any sort of star while the expansion rate is so high at the early universe?
How the gravity could work under those ultra high forces.
Do you agree that when the Universe was very compact and very dense, its internal gravity was maximal?
Why the gravity at that time couldn't prevent the expansion + inflation process?
How could it be that the expansion/inflation could overcome the ultra high gravity forces in the early universe?
I see it as we take the sun (for example) and expand its size by one billion times.
By doing so, there will be less matter in a cube and less density.
That by itself reduces dramatically internal gravity forces.
If we do so, how the gravity could work in the Universe after that kind of size increasing due to the inflation+ expansion?
I the expansion + inflation was so strong to overcome the early ultra gravity force, how suddenly when the density had been reduced so dramatically and therefore, the gravity forces had been reduced, that low gravity forces could suddenly take control and do the requested job of forming new stars and new galaxies?
Think about it instead of just dismissing it because you already know a different answer.
I really try to understand how the BBT works. I'm ready to accept any answer.
However, I still see several contradictions in this theory
Don't you think that as "The redshift z is usually the only number in the whole story that is unambiguous and likely to be correct" than we should fix our theories to meet this redshift instead of the other way?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/06/2020 16:15:32
ThanksQuoteThey also addI never said otherwise.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
Therefore, without an edge and in order to meet the requirement to homogeneous and isotropic it actually must be infinite or at least very, very big. Much bigger than that 92BLY.
So you confirm that as our universe has no edge and in order to meet the requirement to homogeneous and isotropic our current Universe must be infinite or at least very, very big. Much bigger than that 92BLY.
That was also correct 13.8 B years ago.
Therefore, even at the early time of our universe it has no edge. Hence in order to meet the requirement of homogeneous and isotropic it has to be infinite or almost infinite at that time.
So, how can you believe in a compact universe in the early time?
How can you set an infinite or almost infinite Universe from a size of 10,000Ly or even 3MLY in only 13.8BLY under the limitation of the expansion rate of 74KM/s per 3MLY???
Do you also agree that if the universe was compact and all the matter/galaxies were located nearby than the early Universe must had an edge and it couldn't considered as homogeneous and isotropic?
"The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
However, if the Universe was compact it couldn't be homogeneous and isotropic at its early life time, therefore those equations are none relevant for our universe.
Without Friedmann_equations, don't you agree that the expansion/ BBT are none relevant any more?
and the apparent size of the object can be directly computed from that without consideration of how much time it takes.If each of those 19 circular objects is at a size of about 1 BLY diameter, and each one is located at a 3 BLY distant, than how can you claim that their edges are touching?
Again, simple geometry. Consider several such round objects arranged in a ring so their edges touch, and at that distance, and compute the angle that they would appear from the center of that ring. That angle cannot change over time. Expansion of space does not add new degrees to the 360 that make up a circle.
Think about it instead of just dismissing it because you already know a different answer.
Suppose there are 19 circular objects of size about 1 BLY diameter, each 3 BLY distant, with edges touching. How large would they appear (in degrees?). It's not hard.
Do you agree that the solar system or the Milky Way isn't located at the center of the Universe?
Therefore, how could you position us at the center of the ring? Actually, we should be considered as just one spot of light in those rings.
I have no problem with your following statement: "Expansion of space does not add new degrees to the 360 that make up a circle."
However, This is correct if we are located exactly at the center of the Universe and the distance to the rings is fixed.
This is clearly not the case.
We aren't located at the center of the Universe, and we clearly monitor the light travel time from the far end galaxies.
That time is very critical.
Somehow, our scientists have decided that light travel time can't represent a distance travel time.
So, based on your example - if we are located at the center of a ring and there is a galaxy at a distance of 1BLY, do you claim that due to the expansion it should take its light 13 BLY to get to our eyes while we should see it as it is at a distance of only 1BLY?
Sorry, based on your 19 Cycles you didn't confirm that idea.
In any case, you also need to show how the image of a galaxy with light travel time of 13 B years could be bigger than the image of a similar galaxy with light travel time of only 10 B years.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/06/2020 21:01:27
Sorry you/our scientists can't just hold the stick in both sides.QuoteI never said otherwise.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:15:32I never said that either. I only said we have no evidence of one.
So you confirm that as our universe has no edge
You must take a decision: what is the real size of the UNIVERSE???
Is it 13BLY, 92BLY, 500BLY, 10^10BLY or just infinite???
If you can't tell the size of the universe, than how can you expect us to believe your story?
How can you believe in your own theory?
Before starting any sort of theory - it is our obligation to set the size of the Universe!!!
I'm ready to accept any size, however once you set a size and surprisingly -your theory contradicts this size, than you should set this theory in the garbage.
Any theory should give a clear explanation for the whole real universe.
If our real universe is bigger than the observable Universe, while the BBT can only cover the observable universe, than this theory is none relevant.
We all know that Freidmann formulas are vital for the expansion and for the BBT.
However, those formulas are based on homogenous and isotropic universe.
Therefore, it is stated:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
What is the meaning of: "it has no edge"?
What is the meaning of "there cannot be a maximum distance"?
If you like it or not, a Universe without "maximum distance" means - infinite Universe.
Therefore, the ONLY meaning is that the universe MUST be INFINITE. (Almost infinite is actually infinite).
If you think that this is incorrect, than please explain how a finite Universe that clearly contradicts the meaning of – " so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance", could still be considered as homogeneous and isotropic universe while its size is increasing during the last 13.8 BY from almost zero to 92BLY, and as we know that our real universe is much bigger than this 92BLY that we call observable Universe.
Do you agree that if the Universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic, than friedmann equation are none relevant and therefore the BBT is none relevant?
Regardless of how long it takes the light to get to us, how big (in radians or degrees) is that 1BLY circular object going to appear?Sorry.
The light travel time is very critical.
There is no fiber optics in space.
Therefore, longer moment in space, should negatively effect the image.
Hence, a similar galaxy with longer travel light time should appear smaller.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/06/2020 09:23:07
I said 3BLY proper distance when the universe was around 0.4 BY old.So, do you claim that when the universe age was 0.4BY, the size of the Universe was already 3BLY?
That proves that at the early time, when the matter of the whole real universe was located at a compact area (same space time), the expansion should be much faster than the speed of light in order to set a size of 3BLY from virtually zero in only 0.4BY.
That actually contradicts the law of physics that in the same space time nothing could move faster than the speed of light.
So, how can you expand the early universe from almost zero to 3BLY in only 0.4 BY?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2020 11:30:42
There is no fiber optics in space.And again, nobody ever said there was.
Why waste bandwidth on it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/06/2020 17:48:18
As we agree that the redshift is correct, let's try to understand the real meaning of that redshift:Quotehttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.htmlYes, this is the one empirical observation. Hard to contest it.
"The redshift z is usually the only number in the whole story that is unambiguous and likely to be correct."
http://astro.wku.edu/astr106/Hubble_intro.html
"Redshift is a term used to describe situations when an astronomical object is observed to being moving away from the observer, such that emission or absorption features in the object's spectum are observed to have shifted toward longer (red) wavelengths."
In this articale they also add the following example:
Absorption lines of hydrogen, normally measured to be at 4861Å and 6563Å, are measured in the spectrum of a particular galaxy to be at 4923Å and 6647Å.
The speed of light, c, has a constant value of 300,000 km/sec.
Therefore this galaxy has a redshift of
z = [(4923 - 4861) / 4861] and z = [(6647 - 6563) / 6563]
z = [62 / 4861] and z = [84 / 6563]
z = 0.01275
and the is moving away from us with a velocity, v = c * z = 300,000 km/sec * 0.01275 = 3826 km/sec
So, based on Redshift our scientists can easily calculate the velocity of any galaxy based on the simple formula that:
v = c * z = 300,000 km/sec * z
Therefore, based on this formula:
When z=1 the galaxy is moving away from us at the speed of light
When z=8 the galaxy is moving away from us at 8 times the speed of light
When z=10 the galaxy is moving away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
However, somehow our scientists have decided that if the redshift is equal or bigger than one, this formula is not relevant.
Why is it?
Why if we see a galaxy with a redshift of 10 we can't just understand that this galaxy is moving away at 10 times the speed of light?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2020 19:49:31
Why if we see a galaxy with a redshift of 10 we can't just understand that this galaxy is moving away at 10 times the speed of light?Because, no matter how often you ignore the issue, things don't travel faster than light.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/06/2020 05:38:35
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 07/06/2020 17:48:18This formula is based on Newtonian physics, meaning it is a good approximation for an object that is 1) local and 2) not receding at relativistic speed.
So, based on Redshift our scientists can easily calculate the velocity of any galaxy based on the simple formula that:
v = c * z = 300,000 km/sec * z
Let's look at the following image with regards to v = cz:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Velocity-redshift.JPG
"A variety of possible recessional velocity vs. redshift functions including the simple linear relation v = cz; a variety of possible shapes from theories related to general relativity; and a curve that does not permit speeds faster than light in accordance with special relativity. All curves are linear at low redshifts. See Davis and Lineweaver."
We have three possibilities:
1. Linear
2.general relativity
3. Special relativity
With regards to linear:
The relativity principle is called Galilean relativity. It is obeyed by Newtonian mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
The cosmos of Galileo consists of absolute space and time and the addition of velocities corresponds to composition of Galilean transformations. The relativity principle is called Galilean relativity. It is obeyed by Newtonian mechanics.
With regards to special relativity:
So, you base this assumption on special relativity:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 07/06/2020 17:48:18Because, no matter how often you ignore the issue, things don't travel faster than light.
Why if we see a galaxy with a redshift of 10 we can't just understand that this galaxy is moving away at 10 times the speed of light?
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
Suppose an object A is moving with a velocity v relative to an object B, and B is moving with a velocity u (in the same direction) relative to an object C. What is the velocity of A relative to C?
In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C.
But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula
u + v
w = ---------
1 + uv/c2
If u and v are both small compared to the speed of light c, then the answer is approximately the same as the non-relativistic theory. In the limit where u is equal to c (because C is a massless particle moving to the left at the speed of light), the sum gives c. This confirms that anything going at the speed of light does so in all inertial reference frames.
Let's try to get better understanding on special relativity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
Special relativity
According to the theory of special relativity, the frame of the ship has a different clock rate and distance measure, and the notion of simultaneity in the direction of motion is altered, so the addition law for velocities is changed. This change is not noticeable at low velocities but as the velocity increases towards the speed of light it becomes important. The addition law is also called a composition law for velocities. For collinear motions, the speed of the object (e.g. a cannonball fired horizontally out to sea) as measured from the ship would be measured by someone standing on the shore and watching the whole scene through a telescope as:
u + v
w = ---------
1 + uv/c2
So, they specifically discuss on an a velocity which is relative to observer:
""The speed of the object (e.g. a cannonball fired horizontally out to sea) as measured from the ship would be measured by someone standing on the shore and watching the whole scene through a telescope."
Now, let's try to understand the real meaning of Hubble discovery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG
We see almost perfect fit between redshift velocities to distance (Hubble's law).
Hubble assumed that this fit only works locally for low distances (or low velocities) (Z should be lower than 0.1)
So, let's look at the following example:
We are located at point A and observe all the way to the furthest galaxy with redshift 11.
Let's set a direct line between our location and this galaxy (let's call it galaxy M)
However, in this line, next to us, we might find in this line a galaxy (let's call it galaxy B) with a redshift of 0.1.
That galaxy must move away from us at a velocity of:
Vab=cz = c*0.1
However, due to homogenous and isotropic Universe, Hubble law works locally everywhere.
Therefore, if we will stand at B and look at the direction of M we should see other local galaxy (C) that is moving away from us at redshift 0.1
So the relative velocity between B to C is also
V(bc) = c*0.1 = 0.1c
We can continue with this line all the way and see more and more galaxies
V(cd) = 0.1c
V(de) = 0.1c
V(ef) = 0.1c
at each segment the velocity should be increased by c*0.1
Therefore, if we set 20 galaxies in this line, while each one observe the nearby galaxy at a redshift of only 0.1 than the total velocity with regards to our location should be:
V(a- 20th) = 0.1c + 0.1c +.... +0.1c = 20 * 0.1c = 2c
Therefore, a redshift of 2 clearly represents a velocity of 2c.
However, due to special relativity (and many thanks to Einstein) we actually can still observe a galaxy which is moving away twice the speed of light from us.
u + v
w = ---------
1 + uv/c2
Wac = (0.1c + 0.1c) / (1+ 0.01/c^2) = 0.2c/(1+ 0.01/c^2)
therefore, due to relativity, Wac should be smaller than just 0.1c +0.1c = 0.2c
We can continue with this calculation till the 20th galaxy and find that the relative velocity between us and that galaxy
is lower than the speed of light although we clearly proved that each local two galaxies must move away from each other at 0.1c.
Therefore, that proves that while the 20th galaxy is moving away from us at twice the speed of light, due to special relativity we can still observe/see this galaxy.
Conclusion:
There is no error in the Redshift
The special relativity or the expansion can't change the redshift of any galaxy.
This redshift tells us the real velocity of that galaxy.
If the redshift of a galaxy is higher than one, it proves that it is moving away faster than the speed of light.
However, due to special relativity we can still see it.
The galaxy I mentioned with redshift of 11 is increasing its present proper distance from us at a rate of a bit more than twice light speed.Sorry
A redshift of 11 represents a real velocity of 11 times the speed of light.
However, due to special relativity we can still see that galaxy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/06/2020 13:10:12
A redshift of 11 represents a real velocity of 11 times the speed of light.
no matter how often you ignore the issue, things don't travel faster than light.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/06/2020 05:46:07
no matter how often you ignore the issue, things don't travel faster than lightNo matter how often you ignore the issue, you just can't hold the stick in both sides.
So, please let me know where is the error:
1. Do you confirm the following Hubble Law for redshift velocity/distance ratio?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG
If so, please look at the blue line. Do You confirm that at a distance of 15 MPC the redshift velocity is 1,000Km/s?
Let's call this location galaxy B.
2. Do you confirm that our Universe is homogenous and isotropic?
If so, do you confirm that Hubble law must work exactly at the same way from any galaxy in the Universe?
3. Therefore, if we can jump all the way to Galaxy B, and look forward in the same line, at a distance of 15MPC from B we should find galaxy C with a redshift velocity of 1,000Km/s. Hence, do you confirm that galaxy C is moving away from the earth at 2,000Km/s while it is located at a distance of 30MPC?
4. If we will continue to jump in this line again and again, do you confirm that at any neaby galaxies we should find that at a distance of 15MPC we should see a galaxy that is moving away at a redshift velocity of 1000 Km/s?
5. So, do do agree that after 10 Jumps we should get to the 10th galaxy at a distance of 10* 15MPC = 150MPC that should move away from Earth at 10*1000Km/s = 10,000Km/s?
6. Therefore, do you agree that if we jump to the 300th galaxy, that galaxy should be located at a distance of 300* 15MPC = 4500MPC and should move away from Earth at 300*1000Km/s = 300,000Km/s (about the speed of light)?
7. Hence, every segment of 4500MPC represents a redshift that is equal to the speed of light.
4500 MPC = 14677037085.28995 LY = 14.677 BLY
therefore, a galaxy at a distance of 14.677BLY should move away from us at the speed of light. (z=1)
So, any galaxy with a redshift that is higher than 1 must be located at a distance which is higher than the maximal distance of only 13.8 BLY?
7. Do you confirm that a galaxy with a redshift of 10 should be located at a distance of:
10 * 14.677BLY = 146.77 BLY ?
If you don't agree with that, than please explain where is the error, while you still hold Hubble law and homogenous and isotropic universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2020 08:55:25
If you don't agree with that, than please explain where is the error,What?
Again?
OK.
The error is in "3"
a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2cThat's still wrong.
You can't just add relativistic velocities as if they were apples.
Post by: Halc on 10/06/2020 12:27:39
You're both wrong. From https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf Davis, Lieweaverno matter how often you ignore the issue, things don't travel faster than light.
"Expanding Confusion: Common misconceptions of cosmological horizons
and the superluminal expansion of the universe"
They go on to list four misconceptions about the universe expansion, and then go on to list accepted/published papers/texts that make these misconceptions.
B C, you're making the mistake of modeling the universe using a special relativity model, which assumes flat non-expanding spacetime.
Quote
In Section 4 we provide explicit observational tests demonstrating that attempts to apply special relativistic concepts to the Universe are in conflict with observations.
...
3.1 Misconception #1: Recession velocities cannot exceed the speed of light.
...
When observables are calculated using special relativity, contradictions with observations quickly arise (Section 4).
Dave meanwhile is pretty much making up all his physics on the fly, and describes a universe that was falsified about 130 years ago, long before they even knew about expansion.
Here's a graph of redshift vs present velocity for a distant comoving object:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/2lnBV.jpg)
Notice that all curves are the same locally, only beginning to diverge as speeds get up to relativistic velocities.
BC, you are advocating the SR line that approaches 1c on the lower right. The paper I linked goes into detail about why this view quickly produces contradictions with observervations.
Dave is pushing the linear view of v=cz, which is the leftmost line going off the top of the page, which also contradicts observations, but the paper doesn't so much go into debunking this one since it is not a common misconception asserted by accepted scientific literature.
The empirical observations fall withing the grey area, and the favored model is the (0, 3, 0, 7) one, which is the 2nd from the top of the 4 lines. It yields a present recession velocity of about 2c for an object with redshift of 10.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2020 12:54:19
B C, you're making the mistake of modeling the universe using a special relativity model, which assumes flat non-expanding spacetime.I grant you it's not correct, but it's not a mistake per se, it's a simplification. (And a lack of clarity about proper velocity).
I really don't think the OP is up to the detailed version.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/06/2020 20:03:35
Dave is pushing the linear view of v=cz, which is the leftmost line going off the top of the page, which also contradicts observations, but the paper doesn't so much go into debunking this one since it is not a common misconception asserted by accepted scientific literature.Thanks Halc
Don't you agree that only the linear view of v=cz is applicable for homogenous and isotropic Universe?
Let's focus in your example:
he empirical observations fall withing the grey area, and the favored model is the (0, 3, 0, 7) one, which is the 2nd from the top of the 4 lines. It yields a present recession velocity of about 2c for an object with redshift of 10.That gray line that yields a recession velocity of 2c for redshift 10, also yields recession velocity of 0.6c at redshift 1 (let's call it galaxy B) and 0.8c at redshift 2 (galaxy C).
So, while the recession velocity of galaxy B (from earth) is 0.6c at redshift 1, the recession velocity of galaxy C (from earth) is 0.8c at redshift 2.
If we could jump to B and monitor the recession velocity of C than what shall we see?
Based on the gray line, the recession velocity between B to C is (0.8-0.6)c =0.2c, while the redshift should be (2-1)=1
So, while we see a nearby galaxy (B) with redshift 1 moving away at a recession velocity of 0.6c, that galaxy see other one (galaxy C) with a redshift 1 moving away at 0.2c (instead of 0.6 as we see).
How can you explain this phenomenon?
How can we still consider the universe as Homogenous and isotropic under this observation?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/06/2020 20:12:01
Based on the gray line, the recession velocity between B to C is (0.8-0.6)c =0.2c, while the redshift should be (2-1)=1
Wrong. You can't just subtract those from each other.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/06/2020 06:03:19
I get 0.8c at z=1 and ~1.25c at z=2, using 2nd line from top in grey area. Somewhere there's probably a color version of that chart that makes it more clear which line is which model.So it should be as follow:
With regards to location (galaxy A)
Galaxy B - Recession velocity of 0.8c with Redshift z(ab)=1
Galaxy C - Recession velocity of 1.25c at Redshift z(ac)=2
It also seems to me that:
Galaxy D - Recession velocity of 1.4c at Redshift z(ad)=3
QuoteQuoteThese are proper recession speeds, and they actually do add that way, so 1.25c-0.8c is about 0.45c between B and C.
So, while the recession velocity of galaxy B (from earth) is 0.6c at redshift 1, the recession velocity of galaxy C (from earth) is 0.8c at redshift 2.
If we could jump to B and monitor the recession velocity of C than what shall we see?
Based on the gray line, the recession velocity between B to C is (0.8-0.6)c =0.2c
Thanks
With regards to (galaxy B)
Galaxy C - Proper Recession velocity of 1.25c-0.8c= 0.45c
Galaxy D - Proper Recession velocity of 1.4c-0.8c = 0.6c
With regards to redshift:
Redshift at 0.45c is z=0.5 or so. Kryptid points out that redshifts don't add like you're doing.
You claim that the redshift between B to C is z = 0.5 as the proper recession velocity between B to C is 0.45c?
So, how could it be that we see B at redshift 1 and C at redshift 2 while the redshift between B to C is only 0.5?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/06/2020 15:19:19
Dear HalcQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:03:19I did indeed make a mistake there. The redshift at 0.45c is a bit under 0.4. The resolution of the chart is near unreadable at such slow speeds.Maybe the numbers would be more clear if you picked galaxies a little further away, like one at hypothetical z=100 (v=~2.9c) and another receding at half that speed, z=3. Of course there's nothing visible at z=100 since any galaxy there is in the middle of the dark ages, so it emits no light. Hence it being hypothetical. We can see the recombination event at z=1100, which is just off the right side of that graph, which ends close to the edge of the visible universe.
So, how could it be that we see B at redshift 1 and C at redshift 2 while the redshift between B to C is only 0.5?
You didn't answer my question.
So, let me ask again:
If galaxy B is located at almost the same direct line from A (our location) to C.
How could it be that we see B at redshift 1 and C at redshift 2 while the redshift between B to C is only 0.5 (or at least lower than 2-1=1?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/06/2020 05:32:50
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:19:19Because the mathematics puts it at about 0.5. You subtracting 1 from 2 is completely irrelevant, since we're not counting apples here.
You didn't answer my question.
So, let me ask again:
If galaxy B is located at almost the same direct line from A (our location) to C.
How could it be that we see B at redshift 1 and C at redshift 2 while the redshift between B to C is only 0.5 (or at least lower than 2-1=1?
OK
With regards to galaxy B
Light from B is emitted and moving at the speed of light in the direction of the milky way (galaxy A). Let's call it light B
At the first moment after the emission, Light B has a redshift value of zero.
However, after crossing the distance between B to A at the speed of light, we get it in redshift z(ab)=1
With regards to galaxy C
The light from C also emited at redshift zero. Let's call it light C.
It gets to B at a redshift of z(bc) = 0.5.
Than both lights (C and B) are starting to move almost together at the same speed of light in the direction of the milky way.
However, at the first moment (from B) light C has already redshift of z(bc)=0.5 while Light B has a redshift of 0.
Llight B and light C cross exactly the same distance between B to A and exactly at the same speed of light.
So why the redshift of light B had increased by 1 (from Zero to 1) while the redshift of light C had increased by 1.5 (from 0.5 to 2)? (Remember - same distance at the same speed of light)
Can you please explain the mathematics for that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2020 10:34:13
At the first moment after the emission, Light B has a redshift value of zero.From what point of view?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/06/2020 16:37:35
None of the above makes any sense since it uses inertial terms without frame references.
Let's set a direct line from the Milky way (galaxy A) all the way to galaxy C. (Line - AC)
This line also cross galaxy B. (Line AB)
Therefore, we can also call it Line ABC
Let's also assume that from the moment of their creation (about 13.5 BY Ago) Galaxy B and galax C stay always in that line from galaxy A. So, at any point of time in the past, line ABC always cross galaxy B, while the distances between the three galaxies are increasing due to the expansion process.
Let's also assume that the size of each galaxy is 50,000 LY
The light we're seeing now passed B at the time of B's light being emitted, about 6.7 BL ago, not now.
So, let's assume that 6.7BL ago we could position our self in the line AB at a distance of about 100,000LY from galaxy B. Let's call it observation point -P1.
So, line A,P1,B,C is a direct line.
From P1 we can see the nearby galaxy B and also the further away galaxy C.
Let's assume that the relative velocity between galaxy B to P1 is almost zero.
What would be the redshift of light B and light C that we could see from P1, 6.7BL ago?
Light B:
Light from B was emitted and moving at proper speed c in the direction of the milky way (galaxy A). Let's call it light B. Note that this doesn't mean the distance between A and light B was decreasing at the rate of c.So, light B redshift was zero, while 6.7 BY latter it will get to galaxy A with redshift of z=1.
At the first moment after the emission, Light B had a proper redshift value of zero, meaning it appears unshifted to a local observer who also has no proper velicity.
However, after crossing the distance between B to A at the speed of light, we presently see a proper redshift z(ab)=1. The word 'presently' is important. It's what we see now.
However what about light C?
What should be its redshift 6.7 BY ago while we stay at P1?
I do not know the actual redshift that B will observe back at that past event. It probably isn't 0.5Why? we clearly see that the redshift of light C is higher than redshift of light B so it had been emitted long before light B. Hence, it is an excellent indication for past.
Why is it?.QuoteQuoteAgain, you're trying to use addition to redshift values where straight addition is meaningless. We're not counting apples.
So why the redshift of light B had increased by 1 (from Zero to 1) while the redshift of light C had increased by 1.5 (from 0.5 to 2)?
Our scientists claim that high redshift can give us an indication for time, distance and velocity
Therefore, it is all about the status of the galaxy at the moment that light had been emitted..
Light B with redshift 1 tells us that this light had been emitted 6.7 BLY
So as light C has redshift value of 2, why can't we estimate when it was emitted and at what distance from our current location?
You confirm that both light B and Light C cross exactly the same distance and exactly at the same velocity from Point P1 (or almost)QuoteQuoteYes, they do.
Light B and light C cross exactly the same distance between B to A and exactly at the same speed of light.
So, as light B had red shifted by z=1 during that time 6.7 BY:
Why can't we just assume that from P1 light C must get extra red shifted as light B (z=1) as they both cross the same distance at the same speed (from P1)?
How can you claim that it gets to B PRESENTLY at reshift 0.5, while we know for sure that the light B had to cross the space between A to B for 6.7 BY before we could see it?QuoteWith regards to galaxy CThe light from C also emitted at redshift zero. Let's call it light C.
It gets to B at a redshift of z(bc) = 0.5.
It gets to B presently at reshift 0.5.
As Light C is redshifted by z=2 than it is clear that it is located further away from B.
Therefore, we need to understand how long it took light C to get to galaxy B
Let's assume that it took it X BY, than we can claim that:
(X + 6.7) BY ago Light from galaxy C had been emitted at redshift Zero.
It took it X BLY to get to galaxy B and than 6.7 Bly to get to galaxy A.
So, we see today (PRESENTLY) Light C (with redshift z=2) that had been emitted X+6.7 BY ago.
Therefore, how this information in redshift of light C can tell any valid data about the present time between B to C?
Post by: Halc on 12/06/2020 19:00:27
Why is it?.The graph is valid for objects with negligible peculiar velocity (velocity relative to the mean of the stuff all around it, which I've called 'proper speed' above, but peculiar velocity is the more correct term). It doesn't work for just any moving object as your statement implies.
Our scientists claim that high redshift can give us an indication for time, distance and velocity
Quote
Therefore, it is all about the status of the galaxy at the moment that light had been emitted.I clearly said that it maps redshift to present recession speed, not any state at emission time. You continue to ignore what you're actually told, preferring instead to just make up your own interpretation of somebody else's date.
Quote
Light B with redshift 1 tells us that this light had been emitted 6.7 BLYI'm going to correct this figure to 7.6 BY ago. Not sure how it got to be 6.7 (dislexia?), but 7.6 seems the more correct figure. That's 7.6 billion years ago (a time), not 7.6 BLY (an unqualified distance), at a proper distance of about 5.4 BLY at the time.
To get these numbers, go to the picture in post 396 and find the redshift 1 mark on the red line. The age of that event is marked on the vertical axis, and the proper distance to that event is marked on the horizontal axis.
Quote
So as light C has redshift value of 2, why can't we estimate when it was emitted and at what distance from our current location?We can.
Light from an object with a redshift of 2 was emitted about 10.1 BY ago at a proper distance of about 5.7 BLY from here at the time.
Quote
Let's set a direct line from the Milky way (galaxy A) all the way to galaxy C. (Line - AC)I don't know. I don't have an equivalent set of data for that period of time. B will be negligibly redshifted because you said P1 is essentially comoving with B. I do know that C would have been moving away from B at a higher rate back then than it is now. Expansion had been decelerating around that time, whereas it is currently accelerating.
This line also cross galaxy B. (Line AB)
Therefore, we can also call it Line ABC
Let's also assume that from the moment of their creation (about 13.5 BY Ago) Galaxy B and galax C stay always in that line from galaxy A. So, at any point of time in the past, line ABC always cross galaxy B, while the distances between the three galaxies are increasing due to the expansion process.
Let's also assume that the size of each galaxy is 50,000 LY
So, let's assume that 6.7B[Y] ago we could position our self in the line AB at a distance of about 100,000LY from galaxy B. Let's call it observation point -P1.
So, line A,P1,B,C is a direct line.
From P1 we can see the nearby galaxy B and also the further away galaxy C.
Let's assume that the relative velocity between galaxy B to P1 is almost zero.
What would be the redshift of light B and light C that we could see from P1, 6.7BL ago?
Quote
Light B:You change the meaning by wording it that way, so no, your statement is ambiguously worded, thus meaningless.At the first moment after the emission, Light B had a proper redshift value of zero, meaning it appears unshifted to a local observer who also has no peculiar velocity.So, light B redshift was zero, while 6.7 BY latter it will get to galaxy A with redshift of z=1.
Quote
We clearly see that the redshift of light C is higher than redshift of light B so it had been emitted long before light B. Hence, it is an excellent indication for past.Yes, Light we see now from C was emitted further back in time than the light we see now from B.
Quote
So, as light B had red shifted by z=1 during that time 6.7 BYAnother meaningless statement. Redshift of light is something observed, not a property of light. It is dependent on the motion of the observer, not on anything that happens to the light over time.
If you're talking about proper redshift, then use that term. That value has nothing to do with observation.
Quote
Why can't we just assume that from P1 light C must get extra red shifted as light B (z=1) as they both cross the same distance at the same speed (from P1)?One does not assume such things, which would be just making up numbers like you do. One computes the redshift predicted by the model being used.
Quote
How can you claim that it gets to B PRESENTLY at reshift 0.5We decided in that example that B and C had a present recession speed of 0.45c (1.25c - 0.8c), and the model maps z=0.5 to that present recession speed.
Quote
while we know for sure that the light B had to cross the space between A to B for 6.7 BY before we could see it?The model says it took 7.6 BY between those two events, yes. Yes, 6.7 was posted earlier, but 7.6 is more accurate.
Quote
As Light C is redshifted by z=2 than it is clear that it is located further away from BFurther than what? Yes, C is further from A than B is, but C is closer to B than than is A. B presently sees a redshift of 0.8 looking at A, but sees 0.5 looking at B in the other direction. Lower redshift means it is closer.
Quote
Therefore, we need to understand how long it took light C to get to galaxy BAbout 2.5 BY (From 10.1 BY ago to 7.6 BY ago).
Quote
How this information in redshift of light C can tell any valid data about the present time between B to C?Pretty useless. I just subtracted the two emission times and didn't work in redshift at all.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/06/2020 06:18:30
QuoteQuoteAbout 2.5 BY (From 10.1 BY ago to 7.6 BY ago).
Therefore, we need to understand how long it took light C to get to galaxy B
Our scientists claim that:
z=1 means a light that was emitted 7.6 BY ago (galaxy B)
z=2 means a light that was emitted 10.1 BY ago (Galaxy C)
z=5.7 means a light that was emitted 12.8 BY ago (Galaxy D)
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-giant-protocluster-galaxies-high-redshift.html
z=11 means a light that was emitted 13.3 BY ago (Galaxy F)
So,
From A to B it is About 7.6 BY , while we see redshift of z=1
From B to C it is "About 2.5 BY (From 10.1 BY ago to 7.6 BY ago)", while we see a difference in redshift of z=2-1=1
From C to D it is About 2.7 BY (From 12.8 BY ago to 10.1 BY ago), while we see a difference in redshift of z=5.7-2=3.7
From D to E it is About 0.5 BY (From 13.3 BY ago to 12.8 BY ago), while we see a difference in redshift of z=11-5.7=5.5
I really can't understand the mathematics for that.
Which kind of formula our scientists are using to set the connection between redshift to distance or time?
We all know that Redshift is all about velocity based on Doppler Effect.
v = z*c
However, our scientists claim that this formula is valid till z=0.1
If it is higher, than we shouldn't use this formula any more.
At that point we need to use Hubble law which is:
v = H x d
d = distance, H=Hubble constant, v= velocity
So we can claim for
d= v /H
And than claim
d = z*c/H
However, as our scientists claim that the formula of v=z*c is not applicable for z higher than 0.1, than we shouldn't use this Hubble law formula for any z which is higher than this value.
As can't extract the velocity of a far away galaxy by its redshift Doppler formula (v=z*c), than how can we still use Hubble law which is based on velocity?
So, please show the correct Hubble formula that converts rerdshift to time and distance for any z which is higher than 0.1.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/06/2020 15:32:26
Wrong. A space ship departing Earth at 0.5c would have no redshift according to that formula since d is nearly zero. Also, for a distant galaxy, d is not directly measurable. All we measure is redshift, so v=Hd doesn't work since it's not a function of z. It is in fact how we determine present d for an object with negligible peculiar velocity once we already know present v.As redshift has no impact on v=Hd than how do we know for sure what is the distance, time and velocity while we only have redshift?
Let's look again at graph in post 419:QuoteQuoteThere isn't a neat formula with a couple terms in it. I'm using a model that's 12 years old. It has been tweaked since then, which makes for a somewhat altered curve for z to v. Use the graph in post 419. That's the only 'formula' I have, even if it's a decade out of date. v=zc is on that chart and is from Newtonian mechanics, falsified 150 years ago. Special relativity is plotted as well z = √((1+v)/(1-v)), which was always only a local model, so it works for our departing rocket at any redshift, but doesn't work for other galaxies. None of those curves match non-local empirical observations of objects with negligible peculiar velocity, which fall into that grey region.
So, please show the correct Hubble formula that converts rerdshift to time and distance for any z which is higher than 0.1.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/2lnBV.jpg[/img
You advice to focus on the gray area as "None of those curves match non-local empirical observations of objects with negligible peculiar velocity, which fall into that grey region."
So, the grey region is based on "non-local empirical observations of objects with negligible peculiar velocity"
What does it mean: "empirical observations of objects"
How do we know that the ratio between redshift to velocity for this gray region is correct while it is based on empirical observation?
You confirm that we are not using the Doppler Effect formula (v=zc) or any proved formula for redshift, so how do we know that this region is correct?
However, based on this gray region we get the following:
1. When the redshift is higher than z=1.3 the galaxy velocity already cross the speed of light.
2. At redshift 6 the velocity is 2c
3. At redshift 10 the velocity is about 2.5c
4. At the maximal redshift of 1000 the velocity is 3.5c
Therefore:
Do you agree that this gray region confirms that galaxies with redshift of higher than 1.3 are already moving faster than the speed of light?
You have told me again and again that galaxies couldn't move faster than the speed of light due to relativity, and now we have a conformation for that activity as I was expecting.
So, why did you reject this understanding? How sudenly galaxies can move faster than the speed of light, overcome the relativity law and we even can still see them?
Please be aware that the galaxy with redshift 11 is moving away at almost 2.5 the speed of light.
So, how can we still see it?
In any case, this graph only shows the relationship between redshift and velocity.
What about Redshift to distance or redshift to time?
Based on the BBT and the CMB our scientists assume that the maximal age of the universe is 13.8 BY.
Therefore, we have set the maximal time of the whole observable universe to 13.8 BY while the maximal distance had been set to 13.8 BLY.
Why are we so sure that there must be a correlation between time maximal time (13.8 BY) to maximal distance (13.8BLY). Why can't we assume that the maximal distance of the observable universe could be more/less than this 13.8BLY?
However, that time/distance is only applicable to observable Universe. What about the real Universe?
Actually, in one of the articale that I have offered it was stated that "There is no maximal distance to the Universe"
So, do you agree that the real universe could even be INFINITE?
Therefore, could it be that this gray region in the graph is only a theory for the Observable Universe or the horizon of our Universe?
If so, how can we set any real theory while we have no clow about the real Universe?
As an example:
While we stay on earth, we can't see its full size. We only see up to its Horizon. Let's call it the observable Earth.
So, can we offer any real theory that is only based on the observable earth?
Don't you agree that before we can offer any theory or empirical graph it is our obligation to set the full size of our total real Universe. Therefore, as our universe has no maximal size than the maximal size of the Universe should be much bigger than this empirical observation of only 13.8 BLY?
How can you claim for a compact Universe (13BY ago) while it clearly has no maximal size?
If the real universe is infinite, don't you agree that galaxies were always far away from each other?
So, don't you see the fatal error/contradiction in the BBT that aim only for the observable Universe while our real universe has no maximal size?
It is in fact how we determine present d for an object with negligible peculiar velocity once we already know present v. That doesn't work to compute the v of the rocket since the rocket doesn't have negligible peculiar velocity.So, could it be that you our scientists don't understand how galaxies really works?
In theory D I have proved that galaxies work as a rocket over rocket.
Therefore, which kind of formula is applicable for this case?
Peculiar velocity
What is peculiar velocity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity
In physical cosmology, peculiar velocity refers to the components of a galaxy's velocity that deviate from the Hubble flow. According to Hubble's Law, galaxies recede from us at speeds proportional to their distance from us.
Galaxies are not distributed evenly throughout observable space, but are typically found in groups or clusters, where they have a significant gravitational effect on each other.
Velocity dispersions of galaxies arising from this gravitational attraction are usually in the hundreds of kilometers per second, but they can rise to over 1000 km/s in rich clusters."
So, it is the impact due to gravitational attraction/effects of other nearby galaxies.
However, we clearly see that this is a fatal assumption
For example:
The Triangulum Galaxy is located near the massive super galaxy that is called Andromeda.
Therefore, if your assumption about the "Peculiar velocity" was correct, than this galaxy had to move in the direction of Andromeda.
Surprisingly, it is not. It is actually moving away from Andromeda, while we know for sure that in the past it was closer.
In the same token, none of the dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way is moving in.
So, what kind of other information do you need to understand that the Peculiar velocity idea might be incorrect?
What kind of data is need in order to understand that
Velocity dispersions of galaxies arising from the Rocket over rocket activities of the galaxies in the hundreds of kilometers per second, but they can rise to over 1000 km/s in rich clusters."
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/06/2020 05:06:18
Thanks HalcQuoteQuoteBC is the one that keep saying that, quoting SR, a local theory. So nothing local can move faster than light. These galaxies are not actually moving fast at all, having a 'negligible peculiar velocity'. Peculiar velocity is what cannot exceed c in GR.
You have told me again and again that galaxies couldn't move faster than the speed of light due to relativity, and now we have a conformation for that activity as I was expecting.
I do appreciate your honest answer.
I'm quite sure that BC (with all of his wide knowledge in science) had no idea that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light. Therefore, I do not blame him for wasting our time.
However, it would be quite frustrating to know that you or Kryptid Knew about it but unfortunately you didn't backup my understanding.
I do expect you to support any statement that meets the real science even if it contradicts the BBT or supports my theory which you don't like so much.
I would prefer to think that you both also didn't know that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light, therefore, you couldn't support my explanation.
In any case, I hope that by know you have some appreciation for my deep understanding in science without a formal knowledge in the BBT.
Which data?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 15/06/2020 15:32:26Best current fit to data
You confirm that we are not using the Doppler Effect formula (v=zc) or any proved formula for redshift, so how do we know that this region is correct?
How can you get a valid estimation for velocity, distance and time while you claim that the Doppler formula v=zc isn't valid?
The model has been adjusted over the last several years, so that graph gets tweaked.So, is it data or model?
Please show me the formula for that data/model?
I think the new curve is based on ΩM and ΩΛ of closer to 0.2, 0.8 and not 0.3, 0.7 as plotted in that picture. So there is no claim that it is 'correct'. Just as correct as they can make it until new data yields better details.You do understand that by changing the ΩM and ΩΛ you actually change the curve.
However, as you clearly claim that "So there is no claim that it is 'correct'.", why are you so sure that the linear Doppler formula is incorrect?
QuoteHow do you know for sure that galaxies cross the speed of light at redshift z=1.6 instead of z=1 (based on doppler formula)?
However, based on this gray region we get the following:
1. When the redshift is higher than z=1.3 the galaxy velocity already cross the speed of light.
About z=1.6, but yes.
Which kind of advanced technology you are using to get that kind of confidence in the Velocity, distance, & time, while you totally reject the real meaning of redshift as we have in the Doppler formula?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/06/2020 10:47:55
I'm quite sure that BC (with all of his wide knowledge in science) had no idea that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.
Nice try.
What I said was that they can't have a proper velocity > C
I did explain that; perhaps you didn't understand it.
(And a lack of clarity about proper velocity).
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/06/2020 14:14:48
With regards to quasar QSO 2237+0305QuoteQuoteAbout z=1.6, but yes.
However, based on this gray region we get the following:
1. When the redshift is higher than z=1.3 the galaxy velocity already cross the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
It's Redshift is 1.695
So, it is clear that this quasar is moving away faster than the speed of light.
However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?
"The quasar's redshift indicates that it is located about 8 billion light years from Earth"
Yes, I fully agree that "nothing local can move faster than light" due to relativity.QuoteQuoteSo nothing local can move faster than light. These galaxies are not actually moving fast at all, having a 'negligible peculiar velocity'. Peculiar velocity is what cannot exceed c in GR.
You have told me again and again that galaxies couldn't move faster than the speed of light due to relativity, and now we have a conformation for that activity as I was expecting.
Therefore, Local velocities (you may call it "Peculiar velocities") are what cannot exceed c in GR.
A question to Kryptid
Do you agree by now that far away galaxies/objects with redshift higher than 1.6 are moving away faster than the speed of light without violating the special relativity?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/06/2020 14:43:46
Do you agree by now that far away galaxies/objects with redshift higher than 1.6 are moving away faster than the speed of light without violating the special relativity?
The recession velocity is what is faster than light, not the peculiar velocity. They aren't moving through space itself faster than light. That's the difference.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2020 15:16:09
However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?Do you understand the idea of indirect measurement?
I spent lots of my career as a chemist measuring amounts of stuff.
The obvious way to measure stuff is to weigh it.
That's not always practical.
For example, I might have wanted to measure chlorine in air.
It's utterly impractical to actually weigh it.
But I can take a sample of air and bubble through a solution of potassium iodide in water.
And the chlorine reacts with it and produces iodine.
And I can then add a solution of starch- which forms a deep blue/black coloured complex with the iodine.
And then I can shine a light beam through that solution
And I can measure the intensity of the light that gets through.
Well, light intensity certainly isn't mass of chlorine. Different ideas, different units and so on.
But I can calibrate it with known masses of chlorine and set up a graph of mass of chlorine vs light intensity.
And then, with that graph, I can convert a light intensity to a mass of chlorine.
Do you understand that sort of thing?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/06/2020 21:21:35
The recession velocity is what is faster than light, not the peculiar velocity. They aren't moving through space itself faster than light. That's the difference.Well, you can call it recession velocity.
However, as long as we agree that we clearly see galaxies that are moving away faster than the speed of light, while we can't see any Universe frame or any sort of expansion in space - than this is perfectly Ok for me.
With regards to quasar QSO 2237+0305QuoteQuoteAbout z=1.6, but yes.
However, based on this gray region we get the following:
1. When the redshift is higher than z=1.3 the galaxy velocity already cross the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
It's Redshift is 1.695
So, it is clear that this quasar is moving away faster than the speed of light.
However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?
"The quasar's redshift indicates that it is located about 8 billion light years from Earth"
How do they know that a redshift of z=1.695 means d= 8BLY while there is no real reference of point/distance for that redshift?
You have missed the key point.QuoteQuoteWhich is well below 0.01c, which is negligible in terms of the magnitudes of redshift being discussed.
What is peculiar velocity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity
Galaxies are not distributed evenly throughout observable space, but are typically found in groups or clusters, where they have a significant gravitational effect on each other.
Velocity dispersions of galaxies arising from this gravitational attraction are usually in the hundreds of kilometers per second, but they can rise to over 1000 km/s in rich clusters."
Galaxies are not effected by "significant gravitational effect" of nearby galaxies.
As I have already proved with regards to Andromeda / Triangulum galaxies: A quite compact spiral galaxy (Triangulum) is moving directly away from a super massive galaxy as andromeda and aginest the gravitational effect.
The Triangulum Galaxy is located near the massive super galaxy that is called Andromeda.Therefore, the assumption the "Peculiar velocity" is due to gravity effect of nearby galaxies might be none realistic.
Therefore, if the assumption about the "Peculiar velocity" was correct, than this galaxy had to move inwards in the direction of Andromeda.
Surprisingly, it is not. It is actually moving away from Andromeda, while we know for sure that in the past it was closer.
In the same token, none of the dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way is moving in.
So, what kind of other information do you need to understand that the Peculiar velocity idea might be incorrect?
This is a key observation that galaxies are moving in space as rockets over rockets.
Triangulum is moving in a direct line from Andromeda while there is a hydrogen bridge between the two. Therefore, this baby spiral galaxy should be considered as the child of Andromeda or as a galaxy that had been ejected from Andromeda at a specific velocity.
It is quite clear that this galaxy was quite smaller in the past (or at the time that it had been ejected from its mother galaxy as a BH). That BH could generate new matter that was needed to form all the new stars around it. However, some of the new created Hydrogen had been ejected from the galaxy and set this Hydrogen Bridge while it is moving away from its mother galaxy.
That hydrogen bridge proves that sometime in the past, Triangulum galaxy was very close to Andromeda.
So, why our scientists totally ignore that simple understanding while they hold the none realistic idea of that "Peculiar velocity"?.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2020 21:24:28
However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?Do you understand the idea of indirect measurement?
I spent lots of my career as a chemist measuring amounts of stuff.
The obvious way to measure stuff is to weigh it.
That's not always practical.
For example, I might have wanted to measure chlorine in air.
It's utterly impractical to actually weigh it.
But I can take a sample of air and bubble through a solution of potassium iodide in water.
And the chlorine reacts with it and produces iodine.
And I can then add a solution of starch- which forms a deep blue/black coloured complex with the iodine.
And then I can shine a light beam through that solution
And I can measure the intensity of the light that gets through.
Well, light intensity certainly isn't mass of chlorine. Different ideas, different units and so on.
But I can calibrate it with known masses of chlorine and set up a graph of mass of chlorine vs light intensity.
And then, with that graph, I can convert a light intensity to a mass of chlorine.
Do you understand that sort of thing?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/06/2020 05:59:15
So, you knew that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/06/2020 05:06:18Nice try.
I'm quite sure that BC (with all of his wide knowledge in science) had no idea that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.
What I said was that they can't have a proper velocity > C
I did explain that; perhaps you didn't understand it.
The explanation for that is totally none relevant especially as we can't see the Universe frame or the expansion in the space itself as we have no real reference point in the space that indicates the velocity/time/distance with regards to redshift (for redshift higher than 1).
The redshift is all about velocity.
Hubble had found galaxies with high redshift value. He had assumed that this higher value of redshift indicates on a further away galaxy.
His formula is based on this understanding.
However, even at this moment, with all the advanced technology and knowledge our scientists have no real technology to measure the correct distance to far away galaxy. Therefore, they have no real reference to convert redshift to distance, Time Or velocity (for high redshift value). Hence, we can't know if Hubble law for z=10 (as an example) is correct by 100%, 50% or less than 0.00..1%.
We can't even know for sure that a galaxy with a redshift of z=10 is located further away from other galaxy with redshift z=9.9.
However, we know by 100% that a galaxy with z=10 must move away at higher velocity with regards to galaxy with a redshift of z=9.9.
Therefore, redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity.
Well, light intensity certainly isn't mass of chlorine. Different ideas, different units and so on.As we can't estimate the size of tomato only by its color, we also can't extract the distance or time by redshift.
But I can calibrate it with known masses of chlorine and set up a graph of mass of chlorine vs light intensity.
Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity.
Therefore, any graph that aims to convert the redshift to distance or time is based on a fatal error.
You forgot to answer thisI didn't forget it.
I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.
Therefore, I have no intention to read your messages while your main task is to prove that whatever I say is incorrect, even if you know that my claim is fully correct.
Shame on you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2020 13:05:43
I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.No, I have not.
Don't lie.
I have no intention to read your messages while your main task is to prove that whatever I say is incorrect, even if you know that my claim is fully correct.I don't "know" that your claim is correct. I strongly suspect that it is not, and I have evidence for that, in the form of other people's assertions that you are wrong and, you may recall, the fact that your claim starts with a non sequitur.
Do you know that science consist of trying to do this?
to prove that whatever I say is incorrect,
So, what you are complaining about is that someone on a science web site is doing science.
Shame on you.
Anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a blog site, you signed up to rules that require you to address reasonable questions.
So, here it is again:
However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?Do you understand the idea of indirect measurement?
I spent lots of my career as a chemist measuring amounts of stuff.
The obvious way to measure stuff is to weigh it.
That's not always practical.
For example, I might have wanted to measure chlorine in air.
It's utterly impractical to actually weigh it.
But I can take a sample of air and bubble through a solution of potassium iodide in water.
And the chlorine reacts with it and produces iodine.
And I can then add a solution of starch- which forms a deep blue/black coloured complex with the iodine.
And then I can shine a light beam through that solution
And I can measure the intensity of the light that gets through.
Well, light intensity certainly isn't mass of chlorine. Different ideas, different units and so on.
But I can calibrate it with known masses of chlorine and set up a graph of mass of chlorine vs light intensity.
And then, with that graph, I can convert a light intensity to a mass of chlorine.
Do you understand that sort of thing?
Do you understand that you can measure something by measuring a related parameter?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/06/2020 06:24:07
Yes, you did.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:59:15No, I have not.
I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.
However, I do not wish to remember it anymore.
Anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a blog site, you signed up to rules that require you to address reasonable questions.I have no obligation to anyone that had insulted me.
Not in this forum and not in the whole universe!
Never the less;
1. Did you know that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?
Please - Yes or no?
2. Do you understand that the universe has no maximal size?
Please - Yes or no?
3. If so, do you agree that our real universe could be much bigger than the very compact size of the observable universe which is ONLY 92BLY? So theoretically it could be infinite?
4. How can you fit that ultra big real universe in only 13.8BY?
5.
Do you understand that you can measure something by measuring a related parameter?I have already given you the answer for that:
The redshift is all about velocity.However, if you assume that a redshift of a far away galaxy could be considered as a related parameter to distance & time (age) than please prove it?
Hubble had found galaxies with high redshift value. He had assumed that this higher value of redshift indicates on a further away galaxy.
His formula is based on this understanding.
However, even at this moment, with all the advanced technology and knowledge our scientists have no real technology to measure the correct distance to far away galaxy. Therefore, they have no real reference to convert redshift to distance, Time Or velocity (for high redshift value). Hence, we can't know if Hubble law for z=10 (as an example) is correct by 100%, 50% or less than 0.00..1%.
We can't even know for sure that a galaxy with a redshift of z=10 is located further away from other galaxy with redshift z=9.9.
However, we know by 100% that a galaxy with z=10 must move away at higher velocity with regards to galaxy with a redshift of z=9.9.
Therefore, redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/06/2020 11:18:58
Yes, you did.That's a pathetic lie.
However, I do not wish to remember it anymore.
I'd expect better from a five-year-old.
I have no obligation to anyone that had insulted me.There's no evidence that I insulted you.
1. Did you know that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?It's not a "yes or no" question, because it depends on whether you are talking about proper velocity.
Please - Yes or no?
The fact that you think it is a binary outcome shows where the fault is in your understanding.
2. Do you understand that the universe has no maximal size?Nobody knows, so again, it's not a yes/no question.
Please - Yes or no?
And, again, the fact that you think it is shows that you don't understand the issues.
3. If so, do you agree that our real universe could be much bigger than the very compact size of the observable universe which is ONLY 92BLY? So theoretically it could be infinite?The use of the word "so" there suggests that one implies the other.
That's simply not true.
So, once again you make it clear that you don't understand stuff; in this case, logic (or language).
4. How can you fit that ultra big real universe in only 13.8BY?Who said you needed to?
I have already given you the answer for that:No, you have not, you made a childish comment
I have no intention to read your messages
Why do you behave like this?
Are you trolling?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/06/2020 05:41:01
Yes, Our scientists clearly know that the real universe should be much bigger than that compact size of the observable Universe.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:24:07Nobody knows, so again, it's not a yes/no question.
2. Do you understand that the universe has no maximal size?
Please - Yes or no?
And, again, the fact that you think it is shows that you don't understand the issues.
They clearly claim that the Universe has no edge and no maximal size:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
I have already introduced this valid data:
Sorry you/our scientists can't just hold the stick in both sides.I have found one more article about the size of the real Universe:
You must take a decision: what is the real size of the UNIVERSE???
Is it 13BLY, 92BLY, 500BLY, 10^10BLY or just infinite???
If you can't tell the size of the universe, than how can you expect us to believe your story?
How can you believe in your own theory?
Before starting any sort of theory - it is our obligation to set the size of the Universe!!!
I'm ready to accept any size, however once you set a size and surprisingly -your theory contradicts this size, than you should set this theory in the garbage.
Any theory should give a clear explanation for the whole real universe.
If our real universe is bigger than the observable Universe, while the BBT can only cover the observable universe, than this theory is none relevant.
We all know that Freidmann formulas are vital for the expansion and for the BBT.
However, those formulas are based on homogenous and isotropic universe.
Therefore, it is stated:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
What is the meaning of: "it has no edge"?
What is the meaning of "there cannot be a maximum distance"?
If you like it or not, a Universe without "maximum distance" means - infinite Universe.
Therefore, the ONLY meaning is that the universe MUST be INFINITE. (Almost infinite is actually infinite).
If you think that this is incorrect, than please explain how a finite Universe that clearly contradicts the meaning of – " so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance", could still be considered as homogeneous and isotropic universe while its size is increasing during the last 13.8 BY from almost zero to 92BLY, and as we know that our real universe is much bigger than this 92BLY that we call observable Universe.
Do you agree that if the Universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic, than friedmann equation are none relevant and therefore the BBT is none relevant?
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/
"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary or it could end shortly after this observable region. Some physicists have estimated the size of the universe to be somewhere in the range of 200–250 billion light years. But we simply don’t know. Other scientists suggest that our universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses."
So, let's set the data:
1. The observable Universe size is - 92BLY
2. Our scientists do Understand that our Universe MUST be much bigger than this compact size as it has no edge and no maximal size.
3. So, they offer that the Minimal size of our Universe is in the range of 200BLY - 250BLY. Let's call it: Our single Universe".
4. However, they clearly know that the real Universe doesn't stop at that range. There must be more matter outside. So they claim for Multiverse. or actually "infinite number of multiverses".
5. Sorry, there is no "infinite number of multiverses". Our real Universe is one INFINITE universe as I was expecting by Theory D.
My first message was:
Theory D6. You have stated:
1. Introduction
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.
if you "run the film backwards" so to speak, you can find a point where all the universe was in the same place- a big bang.Are you still sure that you can run the BBT film backwards for that minimal size of 200BLY "Our single Universe" in only 13.8BY? How can you run it for the real infinite Universe/Multiverse?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2020 08:39:49
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
You did, indeed, start with that non sequitur. I pointed out that it makes no sense. You would get something that looks like the CMBR if we were in a closed cold box which isn't infinite).
That, in itself, is pretty much grounds to ignore your ideas.
Are you still sure that you can run the BBT film backwards for that minimal size of 200BLY "Our single Universe" in only 13.8BY?Yes.
As long as you take account of inflation.
4. However, they clearly know that the real Universe doesn't stop at that range. There must be more matter outside. So they claim for Multiverse. or actually "infinite number of multiverses".So, the scientists, on whom you are depending,when you quote them like this
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."get it wrong.
OK, that's fine.
Why should we accept their word for the size of the Universe then?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/06/2020 08:53:02
Why should we accept their word for the size of the Universe then?
Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?
Do you reject the idea that the universe has no edge and no maximal distance?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
If so, do you agree that the universe can't be "homogeneous and isotropic"?
In this case, do you agree that Friedman formulas are totally none relevant?
So, how can we support the BBT without Friedman formulas?
Based on your understanding, what is the size of the real & entire Universe?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2020 21:50:14
Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?
You reject a lot of what scientists say, so why would you care?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2020 22:56:07
Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?No
I think we should reject your interpretation of what they say.
But, I'd also like you to address the fact that you start your idea with a non sequitur.
Ten pages on, you haven't done that yet.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 06:09:00
Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?
You reject a lot of what scientists say, so why would you care?
I agree, there is no difference.
The Size of the Universe is The most important aspect in any theory of the Universe.
When our scientists have considered the Big Bang Theory, they were positively sure that its size is quite compact and our Universe is the only one in the whole infinite and empty space.
Now it is clear that the universe has no maximal size. So it could be infinite or at least much bigger than this compact size of the Observable Universe (92BLY) and it might not be there by itself. There might be infinite other Universes around our observable Universe.
I do understand why those scientists claim that "There cannot be a maximum distance" without setting the punch line that - it must be Infinite.
As the meaning of Infinite is the end of the BBT.
So, they clearly understand that the Universe MUST be infinite but they try to whisper it under the table::
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
Not even one word about the real meaning of : "there cannot be a maximum distance"
In the other article they claim:
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/
"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary."
They even add that "Some physicists have estimated the size of the universe to be somewhere in the range of 200–250 billion light years."
So, we can say - Yes they claim that the Universe is/could be Infinite.
However, in order to keep the BBT alive they immediately add: "or it could end shortly after this observable region".
Is it real? How can we believe in such a fiction?
It is very clear that our scientists do whatever it takes to protect the BBT. In one hand they are obliged to give us the updated information that the Universe IS infinite, while on the Other hand they try to minimize that understanding by claiming that it also might be small enough (observable size) in order to hold the BBT
Therefore, they try to go in between the lines of highlighting the real understanding about our infinite Universe and still give hope to the BBT believer that we can still believe in that theory.
So, if in the future we will find key evidence that the Universe is infinite, they will say: Yes, we knew it long time ago.
The Other idea of the multiverses is a final killing element for the BBT:
"Other scientists suggest that our universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses."
Let's think about infinite number of Universes around our observable Universe.
I hope that we all agree that they should behave more or less in the same way.
So, the same BBT process had set all of them. Infinite Universes - Multiverses!
What is the chance to set Infinite Universes at the same time while keeping a requested distance from each other?
Zero or less than zero?
Let's assume that 13.8 BY ago the Big bang sets at the same moment infinite number of universes.
Therefore, in each Universe the Inflation/expansion process must work at the same way.
Sooner or later due to that expansion in space of each individual Universe two nearby Universes must collide with each other.
At this collision point the speed of the matter from one universe could be much faster than the speed of light with regards to the coming matter from the other Universe - due to the expansion process at each Universe.
So, theoretically at some point we should see galaxies penetrating to our Universe at much faster than the speed of light.
What is the chance for that?
How can we believe in that kind of fiction that is called Multiverse?
That proves that we only have ONE real Universe in the open infinite space and that Universe MUST be infinite.
It also proves that there is no curvature in space.
I have already explained why the Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe MUST be Infinite.
So, with regards to your question:
It is clear to me that even those scientists try to protect the BBT.
They don't say clearly and loudly that the Universe is infinite and the observable Universe is just a fiction.
They actually whisper the real data
So, any real scientist (which by definition should believe in the BBT) will do whatever it takes to keep it alive.
However, they also have an obligation for the real data.
Therefore, they hide the real data in the article and try to keep the BBT under any contradiction with that data.
This is not new for me.
This is the normal way how the science really works.
However, only if we read carefully between the lines we do understand the real impact of their message
So, those scientists behave exactly as all the others - Give the data and still protect the BBT.
In any case, do you agree that once we confirm that the Universe is infinite, it's the time to set the BBT in the garbage?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/06/2020 06:35:40
In any case, do you agree that once we confirm that the Universe is infinite, it's the time to set the BBT in the garbage?
Nope.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 07:43:55
In any case, do you agree that once we confirm that the Universe is infinite, it's the time to set the BBT in the garbage?
Nope.
Our scientists claim that 13.8BY ago the early Universe was very compact and tinny. Therefore, all the matter at that early Universe was located nearby.
You have specifically claimed that due to that issue the far away galaxies appears bigger.
So, how the BBT could expand the early & tinny Universe into that infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2020 08:53:35
In any case, do you agree that once we confirm that the Universe is infinite, it's the time to set the BBT in the garbage?Do you agree that, once we accept the big bang, it's equally clear that the universe is finite?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2020 08:55:03
So it could be infinite or at least much bigger than this compact size of the Observable UniverseThose are two totally different options, aren't they?
Please stop conflating them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2020 08:55:44
observable Universe is just a fictionmic drop.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/06/2020 14:06:31
So, how the BBT could expand the early & tinny Universe into that infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?
It doesn't have to. For all we know, the Big Bang could have happened inside of a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe. In that case, the Big Bang would have just been the beginning of our own visible Universe, but not necessarily the Universe as a whole.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28
For all we know, the Big Bang could have happened inside of a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe.If there was a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe, than 13.8 BY ago that early previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe was already there.
So, why do you claim that 13.8 BY ago all the matter/galaxies of the Universe were located nearby while the early universe was infinitely-large Universe?
How the BBT could start while the whole infinite Universe is already full with matter?
What is the chance that our galaxy, the far away galaxy or even all the galaxies that we observe actually small part of that infinitely-large Universe?
In other words, what is the added value of the BBT? Why do we need this theory for the early infinitely-large Universe while all the matter/galaxies were already there 13.8 BY ago?
If the BBT took place under the condition of an infinitely-large Universe, then why it couldn't start again tomorrow or next year?
Why our scientists don't care about the creation process of that early infinitely-large Universe?
Why they only focus on the last 13.8 BY time interval? What about the earlier time of the infinitely-large Universe?
Why they don't offer any kind of creation theory for that early infinitely-large Universe?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/06/2020 14:42:57
So, why do you claim that 13.8 BY ago all the matter/galaxies of the Universe were located nearby while the early universe was infinitely-large Universe?
Whoever said that I did? Only the matter in the visible Universe need to have been nearby.
How the BBT could start while the whole infinite Universe is already full with matter?
Nobody knows what caused the Big Bang, but there's no obvious reason why being inside of another, larger universe should be a problem for it.
What is the added value of the BBT? Why do we need this theory for the early infinitely-large Universe that was already there 13.8 BY ago?
Because it explains the origin of our visible Universe.
If the BBT took place under the condition of an infinitely-large Universe, then why it couldn't start again tomorrow or next year?
I don't see why it couldn't. For all we know, there could be an infinite number of new Big Bangs happening all the time in far away places.
Why our scientists don't care about the creation process of that early infinitely-large Universe?
(1) Nobody said that they don't, and (2) this infinitely-large Universe I speak of is purely hypothetical.
Why they only focus on the last 13.8 BY time interval? What about the earlier time of the infinitely-large Universe?
Those 13.8 billion years is the only history we have access to. We can't observe anything outside of our visible Universe.
Why they don't offer any kind of creation theory for that early infinitely-large Universe?
There's no need for a theory to explain something that isn't even known to be true.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2020 15:44:36
But, I'd also like you to address the fact that you start your idea with a non sequitur.
Ten pages on, you haven't done that yet.
Post by: Halc on 23/06/2020 16:55:33
When our scientists have considered the Big Bang Theory, they were positively sure that its size is quite compact and our Universe is the only one in the whole infinite and empty space.This statement is self contradictory, typical of you.
If there is this whole infinite space (empty or not), then the universe isn't very compact, is it?
No scientist was 'positively sure' of this contradictory view.
Quote
There might be infinite other Universes around our observable Universe.That would put them elsewhere in this universe, which is sort of a level-1 multiverse, which yes, is the consensus view.
Quote
I do understand why those scientists claim that "There cannot be a maximum distance" without setting the punch line that - it must be Infinite.This line you keep quoting says that if the cosmological principle is accepted, then the universe can have no edge. If you don't accept that principle, then an edge is possible. Said principle is not a proven thing, despite the assertive wording of that statement.
...
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
There is no hard evidence that the universe doesn't have an edge as close as 6 BLY (proper distance) away since no light reaching us now has ever been that far away. That makes the minimum size of the universe under 12 BLY so long as we're at the center of it.
A perfect simulator of Earth (from the beginning to today) would in principle only need to simulate that finite radius.
Quote
Not even one word about the real meaning of : "there cannot be a maximum distance"It would be a non-sequitur if they said that.
Quote
In the other article they claim:This is written by an unknown non-scientist. There are many errors in it, and unbacked claims.
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/
"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary."
The statement above says essentially: 'Maybe', which is a pretty weak assertion, and thus likely true.
Quote
They even add that "Some physicists have estimated the size of the universe to be somewhere in the range of 200–250 billion light years."No reference to this claim, so I doubt this. Plenty of other facts are reported out of context. Most of the 'facts' mentioned in the article have references, but not that one.
Quote
It is very clear that our scientists do whatever it takes to protect the BBT. In one hand they are obliged to give us the updated information that the Universe IS infinite, while on the Other hand they try to minimize that understanding by claiming that it also might be small enough (observable size) in order to hold the BBTBBT makes no explicit claim about the size of the universe, so there's nothing to protect.
Quote
The Other idea of the multiverses is a final killing element for the BBT:Factually wrong. In fact, it links an article talking about just 4 multiverses (or 4 levels/types of multiverse), a number considerably below 'infinite'. Each multiverse contains potentially infinite universes, but 'infinite number of multiverses' is pretty meaningless.
"Other scientists suggest that our universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses."
Quote
What is the chance to set Infinite Universes at the same time while keeping a requested distance from each other?'At the same time' is meaningful only for level-1 and level-3 multiverse. A level-1 alternate observable universe (a universe as observed from somewhere other than Earth) does indeed have a meaningful distance from here. A level 3 (superpositions) has no spatial separation. It is here.
Talking about the where and when of levels 2 (eternal inflation theory) and 4 (other structures) is completely meaningless.
Quote
Let's assume that 13.8 BY ago the Big bang sets at the same moment infinite number of universes.Again, that works for levels 1 and 3. The other levels are not part of the BBT. Level 3 is pretty much part of QM theory, not BBT, but BBT does not deny QM.
Quote
Therefore, in each Universe the Inflation/expansion process must work at the same way.No. In some (1, 3 again) the laws of physics are the same, and in others not.
Quote
Sooner or later due to that expansion in space of each individual Universe two nearby Universes must collide with each other.You're envisioning only level 1 here, and yes, they can overlap.
Quote
At this collision point the speed of the matter from one universe could be much faster than the speed of light with regards to the coming matter from the other Universe - due to the expansion process at each Universe.No. BBT says each is moving apart from any other. We're at such a collision point right here, and there's no particular violence going on. You asserting otherwise violates the cosmological principle.
You seem to lack even the most rudimentary understanding of the BBT Start with the cosmological principle and if that is violated, you're not describing the BBT.
For all we know, the Big Bang could have happened inside of a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe.
This makes it sound like new bangs happening at a location in pre-existing locations in space, which isn't how the theory works. Yes, something like eternal inflation theory provides a sort of container for new universe bubbles to occur (said level 2 multiverse), but space and time do not hold the meaning that does in our spacetime, so language like 'far away places' doesn't have the meaning that Dave is trying to give it.If the BBT took place under the condition of an infinitely-large Universe, then why it couldn't start again tomorrow or next year?I don't see why it couldn't. For all we know, there could be an infinite number of new Big Bangs happening all the time in far away places.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/06/2020 20:35:16
This makes it sound like new bangs happening at a location in pre-existing locations in space, which isn't how the theory works.
I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out that it could potentially be true, but we'd never know it because we couldn't observe it. It's just one way that there could have been both a Big Bang and an infinitely-large Universe at the same time.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/06/2020 05:24:40
Are you sure that the Visible Universe is what we think?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28Because it explains the origin of our visible Universe.
What is the added value of the BBT? Why do we need this theory for the early infinitely-large Universe that was already there 13.8 BY ago?
I prefer to call the Visible Universe -- the "BBT Universe".
As it is all about the BBT!!!
Do you agree that the only valid data is the redshift. The redshift of the galaxies and the redshift of the CMB?
So, it is all about how do we convert that redshift data into real meaning knowledge.
If we have an error in the converting process of the redshift data than it is clear that the same visible Universe will suddenly looks differently.
Currently, we have no valid formula to convert the redshift to real output as Velocity, age & distance.
You only have some sort of diagram.
Those diagrams are based on the BBT.
Therefore, what we see (or actually, what we think that we see) meets fully represents the BBT.
Therefore, the visible Universe must be called - the BBT Universe due to those diagrams.
We all know that Based on the BBT, the age of the "BBT Universe" can't be more than 13.8 BY.
Therefore, our scientists have normalized the entire visibe Universe to that time table.
Therefore - it is again the "BBT Universe".
So, the redshift of the galaxy is totally none relevant.
Even if it is z = 10^10, based on our scientists it must be located in that range of 13.4 BLY.
So, you offer a theory and you set the measurements according to that same theory.
In the same token, you could claim that the BBT took place 20 BY ago (or 100BY ago) and normalize all the distances/ages to that time scale..
Is it real? Is that how our science works?
Sorry - You can't do so.
This isn't ethical.
It is your obligation to offer a proved way to measure the distances/age of the far end galaxies without any connection with the BBT.
You need to develop a formula how to convert the redshift to distance/age/ velocity while the BBT is not there.
If you can't do so, than how can you prove the BBT?
The Visible Universe is a reflection of the BBT.
As the BBT tells us that it took place 13.8 By ago, than the maximal age of a galaxy should be less than that.
Therefore, from now on let's call the visible Universe as the "BBT Universe".
With regards to the size of the real Universe.
Halc rejects the idea of "no maximal distance" or infinite Universe.
You reject that article as it might contradict with the BBT.QuoteQuoteThis is written by an unknown non-scientist. There are many errors in it, and unbacked claims.
In the other article they claim:
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/
"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary."
The statement above says essentially: 'Maybe', which is a pretty weak assertion, and thus likely true.
However, you also claim that:
Each multiverse contains potentially infinite universes, but 'infinite number of multiverses' is pretty meaningless.Now you agree that there are multiverse and each multiverse contains potentially infinite universes.
hence, if you set infinite universes why can't we assume that it can generate an infinite universe?
There is no hard evidence that the universe doesn't have an edge as close as 6 BLY (proper distance) away since no light reaching us now has ever been that far away. That makes the minimum size of the universe under 12 BLY so long as we're at the center of it.What is the chance that we are located at the near the edge of the Universe?
A perfect simulator of Earth (from the beginning to today) would in principle only need to simulate that finite radius.
If the radius of the Universe is 13.8 BLY
Than the chance to be in the outer range of 13.8 to 10 BLY is:
13.8^3 - 10^3 = 2628 - 1000 = 1628
Therefore the chance to be directly next to the edge (10BLY to 13.8 BLY) is:
1628/2628 *100 = 62%
That by itself proves that the Universe must be much bigger than what you claim!
The Proper/recession distance/velocity is all about the BBT.
In the redshift of a galaxy there is no stamp that claim - yes I'm a proper distance/velocity.
It is all about the BBT.
So again - You set a theory - BBT.
You fixed the BBT Universe to this theory and called it visible/observable Universe while it is purely based on normalized BBT information.
Then you have proved the BBT by this normalized BBT information in order to get that BBT Universe.
BBT makes no explicit claim about the size of the universe, so there's nothing to protect.That statement is only applicable to the real Universe size. The BBT tells us clearly the size of the Visible/BBT Universe.
With regards to the real Universe size -
The BBT doesn't tell us about the real Universe size and therefore it is fully protected as we can't reject it without a clear statement.
Our scientists know that any estimation could be wrong as we could prove that it is incorrect and reject the whole BBT and therefore, they don't even try to offer a number.
With regards to the Visible/BBT Universe-
Based on the BBT the maximal size MUST be 13.4 BLY.
It is your obligation to prove it.
Not by the BBT normalized process, but by real proved measurements/formulas.
In any case, do you agree that the real universe should be bigger than the Visible/BBT Universe?
If so, you MUST tell us the size of that real Universe.
If it has an edge, than you MUST tell us about that edge (Full data integrated in the BBT)
You can't hide around the message that:
"BBT makes no explicit claim about the size of the universe, so there's nothing to protect"
It is your mission to give us clear information.
If you can't do so, than please clear the stage to other people/scientists that can do it better than you.
How can we consider that approach as a real science?
The size of the real Universe and real visible Universe MUST come before setting any sort of Theory.
You just can't use that that BBT Universe that you call Visible Universe to prove the BBT.
That issue by itself proves that the BBT is just a purely hypothetical idea.
As our scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang, how can we trust them to know if there was a big bang?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28Nobody knows what caused the Big Bang, but there's no obvious reason why being inside of another, larger universe should be a problem for it.
How the BBT could start while the whole infinite Universe is already full with matter?
Again - if there was already a Universe or even infinite Universe, than why can't that universe behave as what we see today?
What is the added value of the Big bang to that infinite universe?
In any case, there is a clear reason why the Big bang couldn't be inside another larger/infinite universe.
Distortion - this is the answer.
Don't you agree that a bang in infinite universe would violate the requirement for Homogenous and isotropic.
Without it, there is no room for the Big bang.
Actually, if the Multiverses was real, how can we still assume that the Universe is Homogenous and isotropic?
We had to see its reflection in the CMB radiation.
As we get exactly the same amplitude and the same CMB signature from any direction, it proves that there is no room for other Universes in the infinite open space.
Only one infinite Universe.
How do you know for sure that some of the galaxies that we see don't belong to that larger Universe?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28Whoever said that I did? Only the matter in the visible Universe need to have been nearby.
So, why do you claim that 13.8 BY ago all the matter/galaxies of the Universe were located nearby while the early universe was infinitely-large Universe?
Let me ask it differently, based on the BBT, as the real universe is larger than the observable one, how do we know that the Milky way and all the other galaxies that we see do not belong to that early Universe?
Why are you so sure that we are in the Universe that had been created by the BBT 13.8 BY ago?
Why can't we just be outside that "BBT Universe"?
1. If they care about it, why they don't offer a theory for that larger/infinite Universe?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28(1) Nobody said that they don't, and (2) this infinitely-large Universe I speak of is purely hypothetical.
Why our scientists don't care about the creation process of that early infinitely-large Universe?
2. Purely hypothetical - Can you please tell me what size of the Universe wouldn't be considered as a purely hypothetical?
You claim that the Observable size is what we see, but you know for sure that this is just part of the real Universe.
So, you agree that they universe must be bigger than that tinny observable Universe. Therefore, I still claim that there is no meaning to explain the observable universe. First you need to estimate the real size and then offer a theory for the whole real universe size.
If you claim that you don't know the real size of the Universe, how can we trust that your theory is applicable to our real universe?
Why can't we assume that the BBT is a purely hypothetical idea to purely hypothetical universe size?
How it could explain the Visible Universe while we don't know for sure the size of that Universe?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28Because it explains the origin of our visible Universe.
What is the added value of the BBT? Why do we need this theory for the early infinitely-large Universe that was already there 13.8 BY ago?
Our scientists claim that the farthest galaxy can't be more than about 13.4 BLY.
This is purely based on the BBT.
However, how can we know for sure that a galaxy with a redshift of 11 is located at that distance?
So, why our scientists claim that the Universe has no maximal distance???QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28There's no need for a theory to explain something that isn't even known to be true.
Why they don't offer any kind of creation theory for that early infinitely-large Universe?
You try to hold the stick in both sides.
You offer a theory for a compact size (observable) while you know for sure that the real Universe should be bigger than that.
Therefore, it is more convenient to you to claim that you just don't know the size.
In this case, how can you explain something that you don't know?
It is your obligation to verify the size of our real Universe.
We want to know the size of the real universe.
How can you focus only on what we see (observable), while you know the observable universe is based on the BBT. So, if there is an error in the BBT there also must be an error in our understanding about the observable Universe.
I would recommend you to use the following simple diagram flow:
1. Find new technique to calculate the real distance to far away galaxies (which is not based on the BBT).
2. Estimate the real size of the entire Universe. Any estimation is good enough..
3. Offer a theory that meets your calculation & estimation for that size of that entire Universe. (A theory only for the Observable Universe is none relevant).
4. Verify if the theory works.
5. If it doesn't - start again.
Once you do it correctly - you should find the ultimate theory for our real Universe.
Sorry. I disagree.QuoteQuoteThat would put them elsewhere in this universe, which is sort of a level-1 multiverse, which yes, is the consensus view.
There might be infinite other Universes around our observable Universe.
It is our obligation to offer one theory that applicable to any relevant size of the entire real Universe.
One theory for the whole entire real Universe.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/06/2020 05:40:03
As our scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang, how can we trust them to know if there was a big bang?
Do you realize just how idiotic this reasoning it? This is like saying, "as we don't know what the origin of life is, how can we trust anyone to know if life ever existed?"
Are you sure that the Visible Universe is what we think?
No one can be sure of that, but it's what the evidence suggests.
You offer a theory for a compact size (observable) while you know for sure that the real Universe should be bigger than that.
We don't know that it is bigger. The entire Universe could even be smaller than what we see (if it is a closed Universe that is so small that light has traveled around it more than once, it would look larger than it actually is, for example). But I don't expect you to understand that, since the idea behind curved spaces or hyperspheres appears to be something beyond you.
Therefore, it is more convenient to you to claim that you just don't know the size.
It isn't a claim, it is true. No one knows the size of the whole Universe. If they say that they do, then they are lying.
It is your obligation to verify the size of our real Universe.
Why is it my obligation to do that? All I do is go with what the current evidence says. If it turns out to be wrong one day, then so be it. Until then, I'll stick with the evidence.
Once you do it correctly - you should find the ultimate theory for our real Universe.
Which isn't yours.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/06/2020 12:13:43
Do you agree that the only valid data is the redshift.No
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/06/2020 19:53:49
I don't expect you to understand that, since the idea behind curved spaces or hyperspheres appears to be something beyond you.Let me surprise you.
I do understand the mathematical curvature in Minkowski space time concept.
In this mathematical concept the Time is orthogonal to space.
However, do you consider that the time in our real Universe is octagonal to space?
Actually, we could add the matter as a 5th dimension to the space-time.
In this case, we could set a mathematical concept of Space-Time-matter.
We might get also a curvature in matter.
For example, theoretically, as our body is matter, we could travel in a curvature time and found our self among the dinosaurs or even in the big bang itself.
Those are nice ideas, but we all know that it is just imagination.
In our real world/universe - the matter is not orthogonal to space-time as the time is not orthogonal to space.
So, as the space time is imagination mathematical concept, the idea of curvature is also pure mathematical imagination.
However, if you believe in real space-time, than please show how the time in our real Universe could be orthogonal to space.
In the same time try to explain why the matter couldn't be orthogonal to space as space-matter.
Visible Universe
Do you agree that our Visible Universe is a direct reflection of the BBT?
In other words, we see our visible Universe by the BBT filter.
Therefore - our universe is normalized by the key ideas of the BBT as follow:
1. Time/age - The maximal age of any galaxy in the Universe (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BY
2. Distance - The maximal distance to any galaxy from us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BLY
3. Velocity - The maximal velocity of any galaxy in the Universe relative to us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 3c (about).
So, do you agree that we should call the Visible Universe - "THE BBT UNIVERSE"?
Therefore, the modern science has locked the visible Universe to the BBT.
Now it is very clear to me why my theory or any other theory would be rejected due to that BBT filter/lock.
Please let me know if you have an idea how to overcome that BBT filter/lock as it almost seems to me that even if God by himself will come down and tell us that the Visible Universe looks differently - we won't believe him.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2020 20:44:01
Actually, we could add the matter as a 5th dimension to the space-time.Not really, no.
Do you agree that our Visible Universe is a direct reflection of the BBT?
No, it's the other way round.
It's obviously not the way round that you wrote it, because we had an observable universe before we had a BBT.
In other words, we see our visible Universe by the BBT filter.No, for the same reason.
The view out of my window didn't suddenly change because someone (for a joke) invented thee BBT
Therefore -You can't have a sub clause that depends on something that isn't true.
Distance - The maximal distance to any galaxy from us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BLYNo
Why do you keep asking that?
So, do you agree that we should call the Visible Universe -No, because it's not got anything to do with the BBT.
You seem to think the theory created the observations.
It's the other way round.
Now it is very clear to me why my theory or any other theory would be rejected due to that BBT filter/lock.
No, it's rejected on the grounds that it stared with a non sequitur which you still refuse to address.
Please let me know if you have an idea how to overcome that BBT filter/lock as it almost seems to me that even if God by himself will come down and tell us that the Visible Universe looks differently - we won't believe him.It doesn't need divine intervention.
Any astronomer could do it.
All they have to do is provide evidence.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/06/2020 23:23:20
Let me surprise you.
I'm not surprised at all, given that you just said a bunch of nonsense again (like matter being a fifth dimension or time being "octagonal" to space).
I do understand the mathematical curvature in Minkowski space time concept.
You can't say that and then follow that statement up with this:
For example, theoretically, as our body is matter, we could travel in a curvature time and found our self among the dinosaurs or even in the big bang itself.
All that does is demonstrate that you don't understand it. You would do yourself a big favor if you actually tried to learn what modern physics actually says instead of inventing nonsense and pretending that it is modern physics. Then you wouldn't look so bad.
Now it is very clear to me why my theory or any other theory would be rejected due to that BBT filter/lock.
Yet it doesn't seem clear to you that your model would be rejected because it violates the laws of physics, whether or not the Big Bang theory was around or not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2020 13:59:07
Yet it doesn't seem clear to you that your model would be rejected because it violates the laws of physics, whether or not the Big Bang theory was around or not.Do you consider the Hubble law as law of physics?
100 Years ago, Hubble couldn't monitor the real distance to far away galaxies. (even today we can't do it)
Therefore, He had offered his best estimation.
However, how do we know for sure that his estimation is fully correct?
Hubble law is actually using the redshift of a galaxy in order to claim for its distance from us.
However, Doppler has told us that redshift is ONLY about velocity.
So, how can we take a variant that only valid for velocity and convert it to distance?
Can we confirm that a galaxy with a redshift 11 is really located at a distance of 13.4 BLY?
Can we offer even one reference point in the whole observable Universe (it can be a galaxy or a star) with high redshift which its distance to us had been validate by 100%?
If we can't do it, than there is high chance that there is an error in Hubble law.
Do you agree that if there is an error in Hubble law than there must be an error in the BBT?
Do you confirm that all the following ideas are directly based on Hubble law or BBT law:
1. Time/age – The universe age is 13.8BY. Therefore, the maximal age of any galaxy in the Universe (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BY
2. Distance - The maximal distance to any galaxy from us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BLY
3. Velocity - The maximal velocity of any galaxy in the Universe relative to us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 3c (about).[/quote].
I hope that we all agree by now that the Universe size should be much bigger than a limited radius of just 46BLY.
Therefore, it is quite clear to our scientists that they can't fit that universe size in only 13.8 BY.
So, if the age of the Universe is older than those BBT ideas are incorrect?
In any case, in order to bypass that obstacle, our scientists have decided that their mission is only to focus on the observable Universe.
That by itself is a severe error.
The mission is to offer a theory for the entire Universe and not just for one part of the Universe that we call as "the Observable Universe".
On the other hand, how do we know for sure the size of the Observable Universe? If we can't monitor for sure the distance to a far away galaxy, how do we know the real distance to that galaxy or the farthest away galaxy?
If our scientists know that the entire Universe is bigger, than they have to offer a theory for the whole entire Universe. As they consider that the entire universe is based on infinite no. of multiverse, than they have to clear the BBT and set a full theory for that infinite Multiverse.
With regards to theory D
So far you couldn't offer even one real law of science that theory D violet.
With regards to relativity -
I hope that we all have seen the diagrams from Halc that confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. So, please don't use relativity law any more.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/07/2020 17:20:17
So far you couldn't offer even one real law of science that theory D violet.
Conservation of energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2020 17:28:55
So, how can we take a variant that only valid for velocity and convert it to distance?Finally, you get round to answering my question
Do you understand the idea of indirect measurement?
And, as I suspected, the answer is no.
Here's the bit you missed.
We do not measure distance by red shift.
We measure distance by using standard candles.
But there aren't usually enough of those , so we extrapolate measured distances using red shift.
Now do you understand why I asked the question?
Just think- if you hadn't been too arrogant to answer it, we could have got here a couple of weeks ago.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2020 17:31:16
So far you couldn't offer even one real law of science that theory D violet.You started by saying this
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.And it's a violation of the laws of physics.
Because the CMB would look the same if we were in a large (but finite) cold box which obeys the laws of physics.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2020 22:03:02
I have already explained this issue.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:59:07Conservation of energy.
So far you couldn't offer even one real law of science that theory D violet.
New mass creation:
The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does.
Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So, new pair of particles can be created in the photosphere around a BH or SMBH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton."
" if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
Einstein have told us that: E = Mc^2
Therefore, the energy in a positron or electron is 0.511Mev
Hence, in order to produce a positron-electron pair, the energy in their total mass of 1.022 MeV is transformed by the magnetic force from the spinning BH.
That energy (and much more than that) is given back to the BH by a tidal forces from all the objects (stars+ gas clouds+ accertion disc..) that orbits around it.
In any case, at the moment of pair creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, the Kinetic energy at the moment of creation for each particle is: 1/2 M c^2
That kinetic energy is given by the gravity force of the BH.
So, while the energy in the mass itself had been transformed from the spinning energy of the BH by magnetic field, the orbital kinetic energy is given by the BH' gravity force.
However, due to Lorentz force, one particle should fall in and the other one should be ejected outwards to the accretion (or actually excretion) disc.
The total energy in a falling particle is:
E(falling particle) = Its mass energy (E=Mc^2) + its Kinetic energy (Ek = 1/2 M c^2) = 1.5Mc^2
That by itself is not enough as the BH had contributed 2Mc^2 for the creation of those particles pair.
So, we still miss 1/2 Mc^2.
However, most of the Kinetic energy of the particle that gets to the accretion disc is transformed back to the BH due to tidal force. (As it starts at almost the speed of light and eventually ejected outwards from the disc at much lower speed)
Later on that particle will be converted to Atom and molecular and will be used to form new gas cloud or new star.
That new gas cloud/star will set a tidal force on the BH in order to keep the spinning energy of the BH that is needed for the new creation process.
So, the impact of the tidal forces from all the objects orbiting the BH should set enough energy to continue the process of creating new particles and increasing the BH's mass during that process without violating the Conservation of energy or the thermodynamic law.
Therefore, the kinetic energy that is given for free by the BH's gravity force, is the extra energy that is needed to create new particles, New gas clouds, New stars, New BH and new galaxies in our Universe.
Do you understand the idea of indirect measurement?Yes, I fully understand the meaning of indirect measurement.
And, as I suspected, the answer is no.
Here's the bit you missed.
We do not measure distance by red shift.
We measure distance by using standard candles.
But there aren't usually enough of those , so we extrapolate measured distances using red shift.
However, as redshift doesn't carry any information about distance, than it can't give any sort of information about indirect distance.
I also fully understand that we measure distance by using standard candles.
However, those candles are located relatively close (or at least with low level of redshift).
Therefore, they are not applicable for high redshift.
Hence, we have no reference points or "candles" for distance of galaxies with high redshift.
If you claim that we have, than please offer a candle for high redshift.
No, you have a fatal error.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42And it's a violation of the laws of physics.
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
Because the CMB would look the same if we were in a large (but finite) cold box which obeys the laws of physics.
I agree that the CMB would look the same ONLY if we were in the CENTER of a large (but finite) sphere.
However, what is the chance that we are located at the center of our finite Universe?
I have already proved that the chance for that is virtually ZERO.
So, any size of the Universe is not good enough to cover the possibility to that we are not at the center of that Universe.
Hence, the only possibility that the CMB MUST look the same from any location is ONLY if the universe is INFINITE.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/07/2020 22:08:56
the process of creating new mass and increasing its mass during that process without violating the Conservation of energy or the thermodynamic law.
That violates conservation of mass-energy by the very definition of what mass-energy conservation is. That's like arguing that you stole something from a store but you aren't a thief. It's an oxymoron.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2020 22:30:11
That violates conservation of mass-energy by the very definition of what mass-energy conservation is. That's like arguing that you stole something from a store but you aren't a thief. It's an oxymoronDo you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
If so, you have to agree that this is the source for the extra energy that is needed to create new particles, new gas clouds, new stars, New BH and new galaxies in our Universe.
The BH's gravity force is for free and we can use it without any need to steal something from anyone.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/07/2020 22:33:09
Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
If so, you have to agree that this is the source for the extra energy that is needed to create new particles, new gas clouds, new stars, New BH and new galaxies in our Universe.
The BH's gravity force is for free and we can use it without any need to steal something from anyone.
There is no "extra energy". If the energy in the system is not constant, then the law of conservation of energy is violated.
Which of these statements is true?
(1) Mass-energy can be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is violated, or
(2) Mass-energy cannot be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.
There is no third option possible.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2020 22:39:16
Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
Please, Yes or no?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/07/2020 22:41:55
Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
Please, Yes or no?
Yes, and that gravitational potential energy is finite.
Now answer my question.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2020 23:05:22
Thanks!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 22:39:16
Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
Please, Yes or no?
Yes and that gravitational potential energy is finite.
I don't need more than that.
Once you confirm that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force, than you have to agree that this BH gravity force contribute new energy (kinetic energy) to our Universe.
Hence, with regards to your message:
There is no "extra energy". If the energy in the system is not constant, then the law of conservation of energy is violated.You have just confirmed that the BH gravity force contributes new kinetic energy to our universe.
That energy is used for the new created particales.
So, there is no extra energy out of nothing. There is a simple extra kinetic energy out of gravity force.
Which of these statements is true?Yes there is a third option:
(1) Mass-energy can be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is violated, or
(2) Mass-energy cannot be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.
There is no third option possible.
(3) Kinetic energy for new created particles is created by the BH's gravity without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy
This new energy is used to create new Mass and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/07/2020 23:10:35
Once you confirm that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force, than you have to agree that this BH gravity force contribute new energy (kinetic energy) to our Universe.
No it doesn't. That energy isn't new nor is it unlimited.
You have just confirmed that the BH gravity force contributes new kinetic energy to our universe.
This is a lie. Lying does not make you look good. Nowhere did I say that new energy is created.
Yes there is a third option:
(3) Kinetic energy for new created particles is created by the BH's gravity without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy
This is not a true option because it is an oxymoron. Do you know what an oxymoron is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
Now, answer the question properly: the only answers that aren't self-contradictory are (1) and (2).
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2020 00:53:20
I agree that the CMB would look the same ONLY if we were in the CENTER of a large (but finite) sphere.You can't "agree" with something that nobody said.
And your assertion is absurd. What you are saying is that a perfectly black wall looks different if you are close to it.
How can you tell how far you are from a black body wall?
(If you are considering the inverse square law, you are proving that you can't learn- go and look through the thread again)
It's you who has made the fatal error, but, things are looking up, we are getting to the root of your lack of understanding.
Imagine that you and I are in a spaceship and that ship is inside a cube a billion miles on each edge.
The walls of the "box" are at exactly 10K, and they are perfectly black
You think we are in the centre, and I think we are only 100 miles from one face of the cube.
What measurement do you think you could do which would decide which of us is right?
(Obviously a 101 mile selfie stick would work, but what could we do from inside the ship?)
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2020 00:54:49
This is not a true option because it is an oxymoron.I think he was short-changed on the "oxy" bit.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2020 05:03:01
Sorry if I didn't understand you correctly.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 23:05:22
Once you confirm that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force, than you have to agree that this BH gravity force contribute new energy (kinetic energy) to our Universe.
No it doesn't. That energy isn't new nor is it unlimited.
However, why that kinetic energy isn't new?
You have confirmed that the kinetic energy which is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force.
Therefore the BH's gravity force adds to any new particle the following kinetic energy:
Ek = 1/2 M c^2.
So, why this kinetic energy that is added to a new created particle by the gravity force can't be considered as new energy?
If you estimate that this energy can't be considered as new energy than it must be transformed/come from some other source of energy.
So, who is losing that amount of energy (Ek = 1/2 M c^2.) which is delivered to the new created particle by the BH's gravity force?
If it comes from other source, than why do you confirm that this energy is due to the BH's gravity force?
Would you kindly explain the contradiction?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2020 05:38:09
Which of these statements is true?
(1) Mass-energy can be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is violated, or
(2) Mass-energy cannot be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2020 05:58:20
I'll answer that once you've answered this (though to be fair, I answered that question a long time ago):I have already answered this question:Which of these statements is true?
(1) Mass-energy can be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is violated, or
(2) Mass-energy cannot be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.
Yes there is a third option:However, now I understand that you reject the idea that the kinetic energy could be considered as new energy.
(3) Kinetic energy for new created particles is created by the BH's gravity without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy
This new energy is used to create new Mass and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.
Therefore, please advice what is the source for that energy.
If it is not due to the BH's gravity force and there is other source for it, than we come again to the previous question:
If it comes from other source, than why do you confirm that this energy is due to the BH's gravity force?So, it's now up to you to clear the issue.
Would you kindly explain the contradiction?
If the Kinetic energy E=1/2 Mc^2 of the new created particle is not due to the BH's gravity force, than what is the other source for it?
If it comes from other source, than why do you confirm that this energy is due to the BH's gravity force?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2020 06:03:37
I have already answered this question:
If you did not give (1) or (2) as an answer, you did not answer the question. Instead, you made up some nonsense that contradicts itself and pretended that it was an answer. Here is an analogy for what you did: Let's say that I asked you "which do you agree with?:"
(1) You did not steal and therefore did not commit theft, or
(2) You did steal and therefore did commit theft.
Then you come along and pretend that there is a third option, saying:
(3) You did steal and therefore did not commit theft.
Did you honestly not see the clear contradiction in terms here? Theft, by the very definition of what it is, is stealing. You cannot say that you stole but did not commit theft because theft is stealing. Claiming that you can create energy without violating conservation of energy is exactly the same kind of self-contradiction. A child would be capable of understanding this. If you create energy, you violated the law of conservation of energy. Period. That's all there is to it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2020 06:42:43
If you did not give (1) or (2) as an answer, you did not answer the question. Instead, you made up some nonsense that contradicts itself and pretended that it was an answer. Here is an analogy for what you did: Let's say that I asked you "which do you agree with?:"Your analogy is completely wrong.
(1) You did not steal and therefore did not commit theft, or
(2) You did steal and therefore did commit theft.
Gravity force doesn't still its force/energy from any other source.
There are billions over billions of stars orbiting around the galaxy.
The formula for the gravity force is:
F=G m1 * m2 / r^2
That gravity force could theoretically last forever and ever without losing even one bit of mass from any object in the orbital system.
Did you honestly not see the clear contradiction in terms here?No, I do not!
Do you confirm that gravity force is for free?
So, how could you claim in your analogy for steal or commit theft while this force is for free?
If you believe that gravity force isn't for free, than would you kindly show why we should considered the BH's gravity force as steal or commit theft?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2020 06:46:05
Your analogy is completely wrong.
So you are claiming that a law that says "energy cannot be created" is somehow, magically, not violated when energy is created?
Do you confirm that gravity force is for free?
Force is not energy. Please don't make this mistake again.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2020 07:02:20
So you are claiming that a law that says "energy cannot be created" is somehow, magically, not violated when energy is created?I only claim that gravity force is for free.
Therefore, the energy that is contributed to the orbital object due to that force is also for free.
Our scientists are using this force/energy to boost their space ship for free.
So they are using the energy in the gravity force to accelerate their space ship in the direction of the moon, the Sun or any other direction.
All of that comes for free.
Force is not energy. Please don't make this mistake again.Any Force can be converted to energy.
The gravity force that boosts the space ship adds a severe kinetic energy to that space ship.
Our scientists could use the rocket engine in the space ship in order to add the requested kinetic energy that is needed to boost it in any direction
However, in this case, they will have to pay for that kinetic energy.
So, do you agree that by using the Erath' gravity force, the space ship gets new kinetic energy for free.
If the space ship could get new kinetic energy for free from the Erath gravity force, why a new created particle can't also get it's kinetic energy for free due to BH's gravity force?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2020 07:09:21
I only claim that gravity force is for free.
You claimed that energy can be created and, at the same time, claim that it doesn't violate conservation of energy. So yes, you are claiming that that a law that says "energy cannot be created" is somehow, magically, not violated when energy is created.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2020 08:30:49
You claimed that energy can be created and, at the same time, claim that it doesn't violate conservation of energy. So yes, you are claiming that that a law that says "energy cannot be created" is somehow, magically, not violated when energy is created.Well, I claim that Gravity force is for free. Therefore, any energy that is created due to that force is for free without violating the conservation of energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2020 13:28:46
I only claim that gravity force is for free.Yes, the force is free,
If I want to exert a force on a table, I can put a book on it.
And in principle, the force will be there forever.
But we are not talking about conservation of force, but conservation of energy.
Because it is on the table, rather than the floor, the book has potential energy.
But it only has that energy because I lifted the book to the table top.
That energy wasn't free- I paid for it.
And that seems to be your latest mistake.
You think the energy is "free", just because the force is.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2020 18:04:37
Yes, the force is free,Thanks for the confirmation.
If I want to exert a force on a table, I can put a book on it.
And in principle, the force will be there forever.
Gravity force is for free!!!
But we are not talking about conservation of force, but conservation of energy.Do you agree that any force can set an energy?
Because it is on the table, rather than the floor, the book has potential energy.
If so, the energy that is created due to gravity force also must be for free.
In your example you are using a book on the table.
As long as it is on the table, it carries a potential energy.
I also agree that you have paid for this energy as follow:
But it only has that energy because I lifted the book to the table top.I also agree that due to conservation of energy, that potential energy can be transformed to kinetic energy as the book falls to the ground.
That energy wasn't free- I paid for it.
So, in this case there is no extra energy for free as the potential energy had been converted to kinetic energy
However, due to the Unique creation process of the new created particle pair we actually get the potential energy for free.
Let's try to understand how it really works:
Virtual particles are orbiting around the BH at the speed of light, very close to the Photon sphere.
At the creation moment, the energy that is needed for their mass is given by the magnetic energy.
However, as the virtual particles were already orbiting at the speed of light and they were already "lifted" to that photon sphere zone; there is no need to pay extra energy for that.
So, do you agree that there is no need lift the virtual particles to that photon sphere zone and it already orbiting at the speed of light.
If so, we actually only pay (by energy) for the mass in the new particles, but we get their kinetic energy + Potential energy for free.
Therefore, during the creation process of new particle we actually get extra energy for free.
Do you agree with that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2020 18:48:45
Do you agree that any force can set an energy?No
Obviously not, because, for a given force, the energy can be anything, including zero.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2020 22:10:56
Therefore, any energy that is created...
But the conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/07/2020 09:57:46
There is a simple formula that links between force to energy:Do you agree that any force can set an energy?No
Obviously not, because, for a given force, the energy can be anything, including zero.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122229/what-is-the-relationship-between-force-and-kinetic-energy
E/F=(1/2mv2)/(ma)
E/F=vt/2
So, I know that you usually say "No".
That is perfectly ok with me.
But the conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created.Conservation of energy is always correct.
It says that energy cannot be created and that is also correct.
However, in this case we have a force or actually a free force that is called "Gravity force".
That force has a clear relashemship to energy.
Therefore, as we have a free force, it can create free acceleration (a):
F=ma
That acceleration/velocity is a key element in the kinetic Energy:
Kinetic energy is: Ek = 1/2mv^2
Therefore, we can get a free energy from a free force.
However, we can only achieve it during the creation of new particle.
Please look again at the following explanation:
Virtual particles are orbiting around the BH at the speed of light, very close to the Photon sphere.Let me know if you agree on the following:
At the creation moment, the energy that is needed for their mass is given by the magnetic energy.
However, as the virtual particles were already orbiting at the speed of light and they were already "lifted" to that photon sphere zone; there is no need to pay extra energy for that.
So, do you agree that there is no need lift the virtual particles to that photon sphere zone and it already orbiting at the speed of light.
If so, we actually only pay (by energy) for the mass in the new particles, but we get their kinetic energy + Potential energy for free.
1. There is no need for energy to set a virtual particle near the photon sphere. It is achievable due to the Ultra high gravity force of the BH/SMBH
Yes Or no?
2. There is no need for energy for a virtual particle to orbit at almost the speed of light near the photon sphere
Yes Or no?
3. There is a need for Energy to convert the virtual particle to real one - The requested energy is equivalent to the particle mass:
E=mc^2
Yes or no?
4. At that moment the virtual particle is converted to real particle which is located near the photon sphere (at radius R1) and has an orbital velocity at almost the speed of light (v=c). So, it gets a free potential energy (Ep= mgR1)
Yes or No?
5. That particle also gets a free kinetic energy EK = 1/2mc^2.
Yes or no?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/07/2020 10:06:06
Any Force can be converted to energy.Just... no.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/07/2020 10:23:23
There is a simple formula that links between force to energy:Thanks for confirming my statement
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122229/what-is-the-relationship-between-force-and-kinetic-energy
E/F=(1/2mv2)/(ma)
E/F=vt/2
So, I know that you usually say "No".
That is perfectly ok with me.
If the velocity =0, for example, a book on a table, the energy is zero.
The reason I always say no is that you are always wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/07/2020 14:57:45
Therefore, any energy that is created due to that force is for free without violating the conservation of energy.
But in reply #498, you say that energy cannot be created:
Conservation of energy is always correct.
It says that energy cannot be created and that is also correct.
You clearly didn't think this through.
Post by: pzkpfw on 06/07/2020 04:22:58
...
Our scientists are using this force/energy to boost their space ship for free.
So they are using the energy in the gravity force to accelerate their space ship in the direction of the moon, the Sun or any other direction.
All of that comes for free.
...
The gravity force that boosts the space ship adds a severe kinetic energy to that space ship.
...
So, do you agree that by using the Erath' gravity force, the space ship gets new kinetic energy for free.
You seem to be talking about Gravity Assist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
Do you realise that gravity assist changes the motion of the source body? i.e. it isn't "free".
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/07/2020 05:18:49
Let's make it clear:QuoteConservation of energy is always correct.You clearly didn't think this through.
It says that energy cannot be created and that is also correct.
Conservation of energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
"In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time."
That is correct!
However, we need to understand the real meaning of: "isolated system"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
In physical science, an isolated system is either of the following:
1. a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
2. a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither mass nor energy can pass.
That is also correct as long as we ignore the impact of the "gravity force".
The gravity force adds key element to the isolated system: It adds matter.
So, if we look on a galaxy without the impact of gravity force or specifically without the impact of the created particles due to the gravity, we can claim that it represents isolated system.
However, gravity is for free and it works between any mater in the galaxy.
Let's try to understand the real impact of gravity force or specifically, the impact of the created particles due to the gravity,
Please look at the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system#/media/File:Diagram_Systems.png
Please focus on the left diagram
We see isolated system with exchange of matter/energy.
That clearly represents the impact of the gravity force in isolated system.
So, we can claim that a galaxy without gravity force clearly represents an isolated system.
However, once we add the key impact of created new matter/particles by gravity force than it is like an exchange particles/energy with isolated system.
The gravity force that helps to create new particles near the photon sphere of the SMBH contributes free Potential and free kinetic energy to that new particle.
Gravity force by itself can't create any particle. For this activity we need the help form the magnetic field. So, the energy for the mass in a new created particle must be taken from the isolated system itself. However, the added energy (potential/kinetic) to that new particle is given from outside the isolated system due to gravity force.
In other words - you can't set the activity of creation new matter due to gravity force in one isolated system.
That new creation process should be considered as a mixture between internally and externally process in isolated system as we can see in the above diagram.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/07/2020 06:00:21
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/07/2020 17:31:08
That doesn't fix the problem that you simultaneously claim that energy can be created and also that it cannot be created. Either it can or it can't. It can't be both.
OK
The issue is very simple
Gravity force is only based on mass while it doesn't consume mass in order for it to exist.
Let's read again the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
"In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant.
So, the whole idea is that there are some sort of energy/force transformations between the difrent sources of energies/forces/activities in that isolated system.
Just a brief example:
Lorentz force push particles, but consumes some energy from the magnetic field.
The magnetic field is based on the rotation core of a star or BH.
Therefore, a consumption of energy from the magnetic field should reduce the rotation/spin of that core.
Hence, we clearly see that one kind of force/energy has a direct impact on other one. That is the basic idea of isolated system.
However, the gravity force doesn't consume any other kind of force/energy/mass from any other source.
It is there just because there is mass.
So, we can consider it as some kind of "NOBLE" force (or free force).
Therefore, it is above the isolated system, which gives it the ability to add new energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/07/2020 18:54:34
Please look at the following diagram:That is the opposite of what we actually see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system#/media/File:Diagram_Systems.png
Please focus on the left diagram
We see isolated system with exchange of matter/energy.
In the left hand diagram we see an isolated system where neither matter nor energy is allowed to enter or leave.
That's what isolated means in this context.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/07/2020 18:57:02
The issue is very simpleSo, it's very much the same as a magnetic, electrostatic or gas in a cylinder, or stretched spring force.
Gravity force is only based on mass while it doesn't consume mass in order for it to exist.
So, we can consider it as some kind of "NOBLE" forceAnd I thought our royal family was too big...
free forceLike essentially any other...
Post by: Kryptid on 07/07/2020 20:52:26
which gives it the ability to add new energy.
But the creation of new energy breaks conservation of energy, because it says that you can't create energy. I find it hard to believe that you can't comprehend that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/07/2020 07:22:05
But the creation of new energy breaks conservation of energy, because it says that you can't create energy.Sorry, it clearly states that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
"In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant.
So, in isolated system there is no way to create new energy or new mass out of nothing.
As an example - if we try to extract energy from mass (fusion activity) we must lose mass.
So, the mass could be transformed to energy (By fusion activity) while energy could be transformed back to Mass by some energy transformation as acceleration under magnetic field.
As long as we keep the balance in the total energy in that system, we can call it Isolated system.
Therefore, when we look at any kind of isolated system we know for sure that new energy/mass can't be created out of nothing.
That is the key element of the basic idea of "isolated system".
Hence, there is no way in isolated system/universe to generate new energy without losing energy in that system.
Therefore, that Conservation_of_energy law shows that there is no room for the BBT especially with the new discovery that the real universe is much bigger than our understanding about the size of the "observable Universe".
So, it is clear to all of us that before the Big Bang moment there was already matter in our universe.
Hence, in that pre-BBT isolated universe/system, no new energy could be added out of nothing.
That by itself Kills the BBT.
Therefore, how can you speak in the name of the Conservation_of_energy law, while this law kills the BBT before its starts?
With regards to Theory D: The issue is quite different.
If we look at our entire Universe, and with the exception of gravity force - than NO NEW ENERGY OR MASS could be created. That is very clear to all of us.
I can even add that the gravity by itself can't create/add any new matter.
Therefore, any new created particle MUST get its mass (or the energy it its mass) from the isolated system.
In other words - we must use energy from the isolated system as magnetic field in order to create new mass.
The gravity force by itself can't help us in that case.
However, as I have already proved, the gravity force is above any sort of isolated system.
It doesn't consume energy from the mass itself or from any other source of energy in that isolated system.
Therefore, the gravity force is above the isolated system as there is no transformation of energy/force for its activity.
Even so, this gravity force can't add any energy to any mass in that isolated system/universe.
Never the less, it has a key impact on new created particles.
It sets their Kinetic/potential energy for free.
That's all.
So, the energy in the new created particle' mass must come from the isolated system while its Kinetic/potential energy is contributed for free by the gravity force.
As the gravity force doesn't consume energy from the current isolated system/universe that Kinetic/potential energy is for free.
Please be aware that if gravity force would have to consume energy from the isolated system (as magnetic field does) than we also had to add it as part of the isolated system.
In any case, we all know that it doesn't consume any sort of energy from the isolated system and therefore is it a NOBLE force.
Therefore, it has the ability to add extra energy to the new created particles.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/07/2020 11:42:09
That is the key element of the basic idea of "isolated system".The basic idea you failed to comprehend, as I pointed out here.
Please look at the following diagram:That is the opposite of what we actually see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system#/media/File:Diagram_Systems.png
Please focus on the left diagram
We see isolated system with exchange of matter/energy.
In the left hand diagram we see an isolated system where neither matter nor energy is allowed to enter or leave.
That's what isolated means in this context.
Hence, in that pre-BBT isolated universe/system, no new energy could be added out of nothing.No.
That by itself Kills the BBT.
The hypothesis is that it was caused by an outside event.
The explanation is rather speculative but it exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Try learning what the BBT is before trying to show that it's wrong.
With regards to Theory D: The issue is quite different.But you already told us that this critical last step is impossible.
If we look at our entire Universe, and with the exception of gravity force - than NO NEW ENERGY OR MASS could be created. That is very clear to all of us.
I can even add that the gravity by itself can't create/add any new matter.
Therefore, any new created particle MUST get its mass (or the energy it its mass) from the isolated system.
when we look at any kind of isolated system we know for sure that new energy/mass can't be created out of nothing.
And yet you refuse to accept that your idea contradicts itself.
However, as I have already proved, the gravity force is above any sort of isolated system.No it is not.
You made that claim without evidence , and in the face of the facts.
It doesn't consume energy from the mass itself or from any other source of energy in that isolated system.
So, it's very much the same as a magnetic, electrostatic or gas in a cylinder, or stretched spring force.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/07/2020 14:31:44
No. It is a fatal error to assume that the gravity force is very much the same as magnetic field or any other energy/force.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:31:08So, it's very much the same as a magnetic, electrostatic or gas in a cylinder, or stretched spring force.
The issue is very simple
Gravity force is only based on mass while it doesn't consume mass in order for it to exist.
Magnetic field for example is used to transfer energy.
So, you take one source of energy and transfer it to other point of energy or force.
Hence, there is a consumption of energy from one side in order to transfer the energy to other side.
That is a key element in isolated system.
None of the energies that you have offered could be considered as free force or Noble force.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:31:08Like essentially any other...
free force
As in all of them no new energy or force could be created without consuming energy from other source/party in that isolated system. So, they clearly can't be considered as free force or free energy.
For example, without a spinning core, we won't get any sort of magnetic field.
Hence, we need an energy/force to create an energy/force.
However, as you already know - Gravity force doesn't consume any energy or mass from other party in the system.
It is there just because there is a mass.
Therefore, if you like it or not, gravity force is a NOBLE force and it is above any sort of isolated system.
That is the opposite of what we actually see.Yes, you are correct - as long as we ignore the gravity force.
In the left hand diagram we see an isolated system where neither matter nor energy is allowed to enter or leave.
That's what isolated means in this context.
So, in isolated system neither matter nor energy is allowed to enter or leave.
In other words - you can't create energy, force or mass without using/consuming other energy source in that isolated system.
That is correct to all kinds of mater/energies/forces... except ONE - Gravity force.
Again - Gravity force is based on the mass in that isolated system, but it doesn't consume any mass or energy from that system. Therefore, that gravity force is added as a free force (Noble force) to the isolated system.
That free gravity force adds the Kinetic energy + potential energy to the new created particles in the system without consuming it from any other source in the system.
It is there just because there is mass in that isolated system
Therefore, new Kinetic + Potential energies in the new created particles due to gravity force could be added to that same isolated system.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/07/2020 16:13:44
If we look at our entire Universe, and with the exception of gravity force - than NO NEW ENERGY OR MASS could be created.
If gravity can create energy, then that would make it violate conservation of energy.
It sets their Kinetic/potential energy for free.
That violates conservation of energy.
its Kinetic/potential energy is contributed for free by the gravity force.
That violates conservation of energy.
That free gravity force adds the Kinetic energy + potential energy to the new created particles in the system without consuming it from any other source in the system.
That violates conservation of energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/07/2020 18:02:40
That is correct to all kinds of mater/energies/forces... except ONE - Gravity force.No
while it's generally ignored because it's small, if gravitational force can act on a body then it's not isolated.
So, for example, the Earth isn't an isolated system because (among other things) it is acted on by the Moon's gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/07/2020 18:04:50
Again - Gravity force is based on the mass in that isolated system, but it doesn't consume any mass or energy from that system.Again; this is just the same as a spring.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/07/2020 20:56:33
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 07:22:05If gravity can create energy, then that would make it violate conservation of energy.
If we look at our entire Universe, and with the exception of gravity force - than NO NEW ENERGY OR MASS could be created.
In the article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
"energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."
So, they clearly claim about energy transformation.
Let's use the magnetic energy as an example
This energy is based on transformation. However, let's assume that the magnetic force/field is also free as the gravity force and try to understand the impact of that.
So, let's assume that the magnetic field is only affected by the mass of a BH and not by its rotation/spin velocity/energy.
Do you agree that if that was the case, than this free magnetic field could add new energy to our Universe?
If so, why are you so sure that free gravity force can't add new force/energy?
Now, let's assume that we all agree that there is no way to add extra energy to the mass that is located in that isolated system. Not by magnetic field and not by gravity force. Actually, I'm not asking to add new energy to the current mass in the isolated system/universe.
I only claim for added energy to the new created particales.
In this case, we must focus on other version of this law that is called:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
"The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as the system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed. Therefore, the quantity of mass is conserved over time."
So, they discuss about: "the quantity of mass is conserved over time"
However, we discuss on new created particles.
Those new particles are added as new mass to the system, therefore, we might get a twist in the story.
In that article it is also stated:
"For systems where large gravitational fields are involved, general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity."
We discuss about SMBH with very high gravitational field. So it meets the definition of: "systems where large gravitational fields are involved"
So, what is the real meaning of: "mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity.?
Do you agree that technically, the new created particle around a SMBH which had been created under very high gravity field (and only for those new created particles) might be subject to different definitions?
Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2020 21:06:46
Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?No.
It "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means that you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/07/2020 21:59:27
Do you agree that if that was the case, than this free magnetic field could add new energy to our Universe?
No.
If so, why are you so sure that free gravity force can't add new force/energy?
Because, as you quoted here:
In the article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
"energy can neither be created nor destroyed
I bolded the important bit. It's the part that you keep ignoring.
Those new particles are added as new mass to the system, therefore, we might get a twist in the story.
No, no we don't. There is no "twist in the story".
Do you agree that technically, the new created particle around a SMBH which had been created under very high gravity field (and only for those new created particles) might be subject to different definitions?
Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
No. I think what they are talking about is the fact that a reference frame in a gravitational field is different than a non-accelerating frame in empty space. As such, the total amount of mass-energy in the system can look different to different observers (but the total amount of mass-energy in an inertial reference frame is constant). To a distant observer, the total amount of mass-energy of the black hole and any particles that it produces will be constant. It won't increase over time.
There is only one case I know of where conservation of energy is possibly/probably violated: the expansion of the Universe. As the Universe expands, photons of light travelling through it are redshifted, reducing their energy. That energy isn't transmitted to anything else, it's simply gone. Likewise, the gravitational potential energy between distant galaxies is increasing over time because the expansion is driving them further apart (against gravity). Then there is dark energy, which seems to have a constant density per unit of space, yet more space is being created over time. Therefore, the total amount of dark energy in the Universe increases over time.
This is allowed by modern physics because of the assumptions of Noether's theorem. Conservation of energy, as derived by Noether's theorem, is based on the assumption that the space where the conservation laws hold is static. Since space is expanding, it is no longer static and thus energy can be created or destroyed due to that expansion. In a universe where space does not expand or contract, conservation of mass/energy holds absolutely.
Since your model assumes that space does not expand or contract, then it is forced to obey conservation of mass/energy. Your black hole, therefore, cannot create mass/energy. It is stuck with what it already has.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/07/2020 15:16:03
I disagree as they didn't claim for the total energy/mass.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33No.
Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
It "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means that you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved.
Sorry, I think differently.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33
Do you agree that technically, the new created particle around a SMBH which had been created under very high gravity field (and only for those new created particles) might be subject to different definitions?
Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
No. I think what they are talking about is the fact that a reference frame in a gravitational field is different than a non-accelerating frame in empty space. As such, the total amount of mass-energy in the system can look different to different observers (but the total amount of mass-energy in an inertial reference frame is constant). To a distant observer, the total amount of mass-energy of the black hole and any particles that it produces will be constant. It won't increase over time.
They don't claim for "different observers", or for "reference frame in a gravitational field is different than a non-accelerating frame in empty space".
Just to remind you that this is not relativity law.
Therefore, I disagree with your following explanation: 'the total amount of mass-energy in the system can look different to different observers (but the total amount of mass-energy in an inertial reference frame is constant)."
They clearly claim that: "where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity"
So, they highlight the "different definitions" and not the "different observers" as you claim.
What do you understand from: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity?
How could it be that you have decided to ignore that open gate for new energy in new created mass/particles?
Would you kindly reconsider your answer?
There is only one case I know of where conservation of energy is possibly/probably violated: the expansion of the Universe. As the Universe expands, photons of light travelling through it are redshifted, reducing their energy. That energy isn't transmitted to anything else, it's simply gone. Likewise, the gravitational potential energy between distant galaxies is increasing over time because the expansion is driving them further apart (against gravity). Then there is dark energy, which seems to have a constant density per unit of space, yet more space is being created over time. Therefore, the total amount of dark energy in the Universe increases over time.In one hand you claim that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" and :
There is no "twist in the story".While on the other hand you open widely the door for the creation of new dark energy which is vital for the BBT.
You claim that it is due to the expansion. However in those articles they don't even mention the expansion or Redshift.
Same issue with that imagination that is called: "Noether's theorem"
This is allowed by modern physics because of the assumptions of Noether's theorem. Conservation of energy, as derived by Noether's theorem, is based on the assumption that the space where the conservation laws hold is static. Since space is expanding, it is no longer static and thus energy can be created or destroyed due to that expansion. In a universe where space does not expand or contract, conservation of mass/energy holds absolutely.If Noether's theorem or the expansion idea were correct, why our scientists didn't add them in those articles as a valid way to twist the conservation of mass/energy?
So, with all my appreciation to your deep knowledge in science, if you claim that there is no twist in the story, then don't you think that there is no twist also for the BBT stoy?
However, if you think that there is away to twist the conservation of mass/energy, why do you hold that twist only to the theory that you believe in it?
Don't you agree that there must be one law to all the theories?
How could it be that you hold the flag of "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" in order to destroy any theory, while in the same token you twist it for that BBT?
Actually, you clearly claim that the expansion works against gravity:
the gravitational potential energy between distant galaxies is increasing over time because the expansion is driving them further apart (against gravity).While in the article about the conservation of mass they clearly open the door for a twist due to large gravitational fields:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
"For systems where large gravitational fields are involved, general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity."
So, if you reject that idea, how can you claim that while the expansion works against the gravity suddenly you can twist this law?
Our scientists that have set those two articles about Conservation_of_Energy/mass didn't consider the BBT or theory D.
You claim that there is no way to twist it.
Therefore, if you wish to kick out any unwanted theory, you also need to kick out the BBT.
It reminds me our discussion about relativity.
Also there it was stated that ONLY the BBT can overcome the relativity law.
I hope that by now we all agree that if there is a twist in the relativity law for the BBT, that twist should be valid to other theory.
In the same token - If there is a twist in the Conservation_of_Energy/mas law for the BBT, that twist should be valid to any other theory including theory D, and especially while this theory fully meets the criteria "For systems where large gravitational fields are involved..." while you confirm that the expansion in the BBT works against the gravity force!!!
So, if there is a way to twist Conservation_of_Energy/mass then theory D can do it much better than the BBT.
Since your model assumes that space does not expand or contract, then it is forced to obey conservation of mass/energy. Your black hole, therefore, cannot create mass/energy. It is stuck with what it already has.In those articles there is no single word about space expansion. So, why are you so sure that only the space expansion can twist the law while there is no backup for this assumption in those articles?
Conclusion -
If you still believe that ONLY the BBT can overcome that law, than it is your obligation to show in those specific laws how you can twist them.
Please show the gate for new added dark energy due to expansion ONLY in those two Conservation_of_mass/energy articales
How could it be?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33No.
Do you agree that if that was the case, than this free magnetic field could add new energy to our Universe?
Do you agree the energy in mass of new created particles is coming from the magnetic field?
If it was free, than why can't we assume that the added mass was also was for free?
However, I can understand that in this case it would blow out the Conservation_of_mass/energy, but this was just an hypothetical idea.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/07/2020 17:31:02
So, they highlight the "different definitions" and not the "different observers" as you claim.
They don't say what those "different definitions" are, now do they?
How could it be that you have decided to ignore that open gate for new energy in new created mass/particles?
I haven't. There is no "open gate".
However in those articles they don't even mention the expansion or Redshift.
Wikipedia is not exhaustive.
Same issue with that imagination that is called: "Noether's theorem"
Noether's theorem isn't imagination. It has been proven. When its base assumption holds, it does too. That's what a theorem is. By calling Noether's theorem "imagination", you might as well be calling Pythagoras' theorem imagination.
If Noether's theorem or the expansion idea were correct, why our scientists didn't add them in those articles as a valid way to twist the conservation of mass/energy?
Wikipedia isn't necessarily written by scientists.
Don't you agree that there must be one law to all the theories?
Yes, which is why energy conservation can't be violated in a static, non-expanding universe (i.e. the one your propose).
In those articles there is no single word about space expansion. So, why are you so sure that only the space expansion can twist the law while there is no backup for this assumption in those articles?
It's Wikipedia. You can't expect it to know everything.
Do you agree the energy in mass of new created particles is coming from the magnetic field?
No.
If it was free, than why can't we assume that the added mass was also was for free?
It isn't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2020 17:50:59
If Noether's theorem or the expansion idea were correct, why our scientists didn't add them in those articles as a valid way to twist the conservation of mass/energy?That's a silly question.
The answer is "because scientists are not in the business of "twisting" things.
But it's even more stupid than that, because scientists do add Noether's theorem to posts and articles..
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65377.msg477790#msg477790
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71752.msg526975#msg526975
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72032.msg529808#msg529808
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79170.msg601184#msg601184
and so on.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/07/2020 05:57:15
It's Wikipedia. You can't expect it to know everything.How could you misestimate the knowledge of those scientists from Wikipedia?
If you claim that they don't know about the subject that they write then why we use their articles to prove that there is no way to add extra energy or mass?
Actually, you can claim that any scientist doesn't know everything. However, if they focus on a subject, don't you agree that they must have wide knowledge in this subject?
So on which kind of science/scientists do you wish to base our discussion?
As you might understand, I have full trust in those scientists from Wikipedia (especially, as they don't position the BBT or any other theory in front of their eyes.)
So, let's focus again in the following key statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
"For systems where large gravitational fields are involved, general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity."
Would you kindly advice if you agree with my understanding:
I wonder why BC claims that:I disagree as they didn't claim for the total energy/mass.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33No.
Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
It "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means that you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved.
"neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means that you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved.
Where do we see in this statement that the overall total of mass/energy is conserved?
I have tried to translate it and the simple meaning is: "Not mass or energy is kept conserved".
Please advice if you agree with me or with BC.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/07/2020 06:12:33
How could you misestimate the knowledge of those scientists from Wikipedia?
(1) Wikipedia is not a scientific website. Anyone can edit it. Most of the writers of those articles are probably not scientists.
(2) Funny how you are promoting the scientific knowledge on Wikipedia here, yet you dismiss that very same scientific knowledge when it talks about the expansion of the Universe.
If you claim that they don't know about the subject that they write then why we use their articles to prove that there is no way to add extra energy or mass?
You can know something about a subject without knowing everything about it.
Actually, you can claim that any scientist doesn't know everything. However, if they focus on a subject, don't you agree that they must have wide knowledge in this subject?
Having wide knowledge of a subject is not the same as knowing absolutely everything about a subject.
So on which kind of science/scientists do you wish to base our discussion?
That which is based on evidence.
Would you kindly advice if you agree with my understanding:
There is very little about your understanding of anything that I agree with.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2020 10:06:54
I wonder why BC claims that:Because "you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved."
"neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means that you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved.
Is true.
I can't rule out the idea that they meant something else entirely, but it's likely that they didn't go to the trouble of writing something that's actually wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/07/2020 10:11:04
I read your answer and I still do not believe that you claim that those scientists that wrote that article have no real knowledge in that subject.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:57:15(1) Wikipedia is not a scientific website. Anyone can edit it. Most of the writers of those articles are probably not scientists.
How could you misestimate the knowledge of those scientists from Wikipedia?
(2) Funny how you are promoting the scientific knowledge on Wikipedia here, yet you dismiss that very same scientific knowledge when it talks about the expansion of the Universe.
However, it is clear to me why you do claim that they have so poor knowledge in this subject:
You can know something about a subject without knowing everything about it.
Can I assume that you do understand that the real meaning in English for: "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" is: "Not mass or energy is kept conserved"?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:57:15Having wide knowledge of a subject is not the same as knowing absolutely everything about a subject.
Actually, you can claim that any scientist doesn't know everything. However, if they focus on a subject, don't you agree that they must have wide knowledge in this subject?
Hence, as you can't claim that my understanding in English is incorrect, than you claim that those scientists that wrote that article has no real knowledge in this subject.
In the same token, as I do not accept the estimation that: "the overall total mass/energy is conserved" forever and ever...
Then you also claim that:
There is very little about your understanding of anything that I agree with.So would you kindly just advice if at least my understanding in English is correct.
Do you agree that "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means: "Not mass or energy is kept conserved".
Therefore, the real meaning of:
"For systems where large gravitational fields are involved, general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity."
MUST BE:
"For systems with large gravitational fields (as BH or SMBH), general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and Not mass or energy is kept conserved as is the case in special relativity."
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/07/2020 10:42:31
But it's even more stupid than that, because scientists do add Noether's theorem to posts and articles..Thanks for the article:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65377.msg477790#msg477790
https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/problems-you-can-solve-just-by-looking-at-them-the-meaning-of-noethers-theorem/
It is stated clearly that Noether’s Theorem deals with conserved quantity.
"Noether’s Theorem guarantees that for each of these symmetries there is a conserved quantity."
"Noether’s Theorem also allows you to identify less obvious conserved quantities. For example, imagine that the force-emitting object is a cylinder with a helical coil wrapped around it"
"Noether’s Theorem therefore guarantees that a particular combination of linear momentum and angular momentum will be conserved forever."
However, at the end they claim:
"Probably the most profound insight of Noether’s Theorem comes from its view of the principle of energy conservation itself. Energy conservation appears naturally from Noether’s Theorem when you assume that the environment is symmetric with respect to translations in time. That is, saying that energy is conserved is equivalent to saying that the laws of physics are unchanging in time."
So, it is all about conserved quantity and an idea about conserved energy if the environment is symmetric.
Hence, why do you think that this law could help you to get the extra dark energy that you need for the expansion in space?
How do you see a change in the energy due to that Theorem?
If there is a change, why it is an added extra energy and not added extra mass?
Why suddenly when it comes to the BBT, the law of conservation of energy/mass doesn't work as it should?
Because "you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved."If it is added energy, Why not normal energy, normal mass or the energy for dark mater?
Is true.
Why are you so sure that this Noether’s Theorem that only focus on conserved quantity - (or REAL MATER), can give you the requested dark energy (and only dark energy) for free due to the expansion in space?
If it is ONLY dark energy how could it be that it fully meets the quantity that is vital for the BBT, no more no less?
Can you please prove it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/07/2020 12:10:35
Hence, why do you think that this law could help you to get the extra dark energy that you need for the expansion in space?I don't.
How do you see a change in the energy due to that Theorem?I don't.
There's been a lot of focus on the meaning of ""neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" "
It's a quote from wiki, it's not holy scripture.
If we don't know what they meant (and we don't) the best thing to do is ignore it.
Why suddenly when it comes to the BBT, the law of conservation of energy/mass doesn't work as it should?One of very few things we do know about the BB is that it changed the laws of physics.
However, there's a difference between they changed once 14 billion years ago and your contention which is that they are continuing to change all the time.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/07/2020 15:01:16
I read your answer and I still do not believe that you claim that those scientists that wrote that article have no real knowledge in that subject.
There you go again. Do you have any evidence that the article was written by scientists?
However, it is clear to me why you do claim that they have so poor knowledge in this subject:
I never said they have "poor knowledge" on the subject.
Can I assume that you do understand that the real meaning in English for: "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" is: "Not mass or energy is kept conserved"?
No.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 12/07/2020 16:53:52
“For systems where large gravitational fields are involved, general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity.”
The key to understanding the Wiki article statement Is that the article is about Conservation of Mass. Mass-Energy conservation is not being discussed. Within the mathematical models of each of the several non-relativistic theoretical systems discussed, mass is strictly conserved. In actuality, all energy production in chemistry and the like results in the loss of some mass but this loss is essentially unmeasurable. c^2 is a really really big number so tiny amounts of m can yield a whole lot of E. There is conservation of mass-energy but in just about all real-world settings, the loss of mass can be ignored, being far too small to matter in calculations.
Special Relativity gets a little odd in that there is rest mass and there is relativistic mass, which also includes the mass equivalent of the energy of the system. Not going there today.
But the real problem in understanding appears to be about how General Relativity fits into the picture. Mass by itself is not conserved in GR and neither is energy by itself. Claims are made that even mass-energy or even just plain energy is not conserved but I do not think that is the case.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is often given as an example. The energy of a photon is related to its frequency. When the universe was denser, the CMB photons had a higher frequency. The number of photons has not changed but the frequency is lower today. Each photon has less energy. Where did the energy go?
The reduction in frequency is due to space having expanded. The gravitational field of the universe is weaker now because the mass is spread further apart. Recall that a gravitational field contains negative energy. It ‘pulls’ rather than ‘pushes’. The positive energy lost by the photons due to the expansion of space exactly matches the negative energy lost by the gravitational field from having the photons further apart, resulting in a weaker gravitational field. Both have moved closer to zero by the same amount. Energy is conserved.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/07/2020 18:01:23
Sorry, I disagree.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:11:04No.
Can I assume that you do understand that the real meaning in English for: "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" is: "Not mass or energy is kept conserved"?
Let's use the help from cambridge:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=%22neither+mass+nor+energy+is+strictly+and+simply+conserved%22
neither - not either of two things
strictly - completely or entirely:
simply - completely or as much as possible
Hence, the meaning is:
"Not mass and not Energy is completely or entirely or as much as possible conserved"
If you have better translation that contradicts my understanding, than please offer it.
So, the meaning of that message in English is very clear to me.
There's been a lot of focus on the meaning of ""neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" "Sorry again. I disagree.
It's a quote from wiki, it's not holy scripture.
If we don't know what they meant (and we don't) the best thing to do is ignore it.
It is quite easy to understand the simple meaning that message:
"For systems with large gravitational fields (as BH or SMBH), general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and Not mass or energy is kept conserved as is the case in special relativity."So the meaning is clear, but you don't like that meaning. This is also very clear.
But the real problem in understanding appears to be about how General Relativity fits into the picture. Mass by itself is not conserved in GR and neither is energy by itself. Claims are made that even mass-energy or even just plain energy is not conserved but I do not think that is the case.Thanks for joining the discussion.
So, based on your answer: "Claims are made that even mass-energy or even just plain energy is not conserved" means that you fully agree that my English understanding is correct.
However, you think that this statement is incorrect: "but I do not think that is the case"
As long as we all agree with the meaning in English, than this is al least good start.
The key to understanding the Wiki article statement Is that the article is about Conservation of Mass. Mass-Energy conservation is not being discussed. Within the mathematical models of each of the several non-relativistic theoretical systems discussed, mass is strictly conserved. In actuality, all energy production in chemistry and the like results in the loss of some mass but this loss is essentially unmeasurable. c^2 is a really really big number so tiny amounts of m can yield a whole lot of E. There is conservation of mass-energy but in just about all real-world settings, the loss of mass can be ignored, being far too small to matter in calculations.Yes, I fully agree with your explanation.
However, in this case you focus on mass loss: " In actuality, all energy production in chemistry and the like results in the loss of some mass but this loss is essentially unmeasurable."
So, I can fully agree that there is full conservation of energy/mass in any given isolated system.
However, it gets more complicated under new created particles.
Those new created particles could be created ONLY under very high gravity force/field near the photon zone around a massive object as BH or SMBH.
The idea is that those new created particles (ordinary particles) are created from a virtual particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
"Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles."
So, it is also stated that there is always a" conserve energy and momentum" between the virtual particle to ordinary particle. Therefore, if the virtual particle is orbiting at the speed of light due to the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH, then also the new created ordinary particle should carry the same momentum and orbit at the same speed of light (due to the gravity force)
So, while the ordinary particle gets its mass energy (E=Mc^2) from the isolated system, it also gets its momentum/velocity from the virtual particle. That velocity represents its kinetic energy and it is based on the idea of "conserve energy and momentum" between virtual to ordinary particles.
Therefore, in the process of creating new particle we get extra kinetic energy.
We also need to add the extra potential energy. The virtual particle already orbits near the photon zone. So, as it converts to ordinary particle it gets also a potential energy for free. All of that due to gravity force.
Without gravity force, there will be no virtual particles and of course no ordinary particles.
So, the momentum that the gravity force gives for free to the virtual particle is transformed to the ordinary particle.
Therefore, do you agree that new (Kinetic + Potential) energy is added to the system by the new created ordinary particles?
SorryQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:42:31One of very few things we do know about the BB is that it changed the laws of physics.
Why suddenly when it comes to the BBT, the law of conservation of energy/mass doesn't work as it should?
Nothing could change the law of physics. Not the BBT and not any other theory.
If you need to change the law of physics in order to hold the BBT, than it is better to you to set the BBT in the garbage!!!
I clearly claim that Theory D doesn't violate any law of physics, while you clearly claim that the BBT violets the law of physics.
Therefore, don't you agree that we should consider replacing the BBT by more advanced theory?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/07/2020 18:30:02
It is quite easy to understand the simple meaning that message:Plainly not true, or there wouldn't be a discussion about it.
I clearly claim that Theory D doesn't violate any law of physics, while you clearly claim that the BBT violets the law of physics.It is true that you clearly claim that.
That is not the same as saying that it is clear that the statement is true.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 13/07/2020 23:06:33
But the real problem in understanding appears to be about how General Relativity fits into the picture. Mass by itself is not conserved in GR and neither is energy by itself. Claims are made that even mass-energy or even just plain energy is not conserved but I do not think that is the case.Thanks for joining the discussion.
So, based on your answer: "Claims are made that even mass-energy or even just plain energy is not conserved" means that you fully agree that my English understanding is correct.
However, you think that this statement is incorrect: "but I do not think that is the case"
As long as we all agree with the meaning in English, then this is at least good start.
I explained why I did not think the claim often made about General Relativity not conserving energy in the CMB is incorrect. Are you disagreeing with my explanation? I am confused. By leaving GR out of my statement, are you implying that I am saying something more universal?
The key to understanding the Wiki article statement Is that the article is about Conservation of Mass. Mass-Energy conservation is not being discussed. Within the mathematical models of each of the several non-relativistic theoretical systems discussed, mass is strictly conserved. In actuality, all energy production in chemistry and the like results in the loss of some mass but this loss is essentially unmeasurable. c^2 is a really really big number so tiny amounts of m can yield a whole lot of E. There is conservation of mass-energy but in just about all real-world settings, the loss of mass can be ignored, being far too small to matter in calculations.Yes, I fully agree with your explanation.
However, in this case you focus on mass loss: " In actuality, all energy production in chemistry and the like results in the loss of some mass but this loss is essentially unmeasurable."
So, I can fully agree that there is full conservation of energy/mass in any given isolated system.
However, it gets more complicated under new created particles.
Those new created particles could be created ONLY under very high gravity force/field near the photon zone around a massive object as BH or SMBH.
The idea is that those new created particles (ordinary particles) are created from a virtual particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
"Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles."
So, it is also stated that there is always a" conserve energy and momentum" between the virtual particle to ordinary particle. Therefore, if the virtual particle is orbiting at the speed of light due to the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH, then also the new created ordinary particle should carry the same momentum and orbit at the same speed of light (due to the gravity force)
So, while the ordinary particle gets its mass energy (E=Mc^2) from the isolated system, it also gets its momentum/velocity from the virtual particle. That velocity represents its kinetic energy and it is based on the idea of "conserve energy and momentum" between virtual to ordinary particles.
Therefore, in the process of creating new particle we get extra kinetic energy.
We also need to add the extra potential energy. The virtual particle already orbits near the photon zone. So, as it converts to ordinary particle it gets also a potential energy for free. All of that due to gravity force.
Without gravity force, there will be no virtual particles and of course no ordinary particles.
So, the momentum that the gravity force gives for free to the virtual particle is transformed to the ordinary particle.
Therefore, do you agree that new (Kinetic + Potential) energy is added to the system by the new created ordinary particles?
I do not agree. The mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein (1) radiation implicitly assumes that the two virtual particles have opposite mass-energy signs, totaling zero. This is why virtual particles do not fall on the mass shell, which is the double-sided hyperboloid that represents solutions to the energy momentum relation. Pictures of this usually show two things like turtle shells but it should be understood that like 2D hyperbolas they extend without limit. In this view, virtual particles have both positive and negative mass-energy and how much of what shows up where depends on circumstances. So in general virtual particles do not fall on the mass shell except perhaps at the zero point.
The idea of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation is that virtual particle pairs created near the event horizon might be pulled apart by the strong gravity. The negative mass-energy particle would be absorbed into the black hole which would then contain less mass-energy. The positive energy would be free to escape, with its now real mass-energy being balanced by the loss of mass-energy of the black hole. No violation of mass-energy conservation.
I have never successfully plowed through the necessary tensor transformations involved but I do have some issues. Why is it that only the negative mass-energy particle gets absorbed? Seems that half the time, it should be the positive mass-energy particle that gets absorbed, increasing the mass-energy of the black hole and liberating a negative mass-energy particle!
Also, because this is right outside the event horizon, the Hawking-Bekenstein radiation has to climb up the gravity well before it reaches the universe at large. Recall that from the viewpoint of an external observer, an object dropped into a black hole will never be seen to cross the event horizon. Spacetime has been bent so much at the horizon that time is enormously slowed as seen from outside. (The viewpoint of the dropped object is another matter.) Just as the light from the dropped object emitted near the event horizon takes a very long time to reach an external observer, the new Hawking-Bekenstein radiation will take a very long time to reach an external observer.
By photon zone, do you mean the lowest region where stable photon orbitals can exist around a black hole? That is surprisingly not all that close to the event horizon. In a non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black hole, that region is half the Schwarzschild radius above the event horizon. Simplistically put, the Schwarzschild radius is the radius of a Euclidean sphere having the circumference of a black hole. In a real black hole, the radius could be infinite. The Schwarzschild radius is a measure of the ‘size’ of the black hole, where the event horizon lies. In a rotating (Kerr) black hole, as all black holes in the universe almost certainly are, the photon orbital situation is very complicated and I am not going there right now.
It is important to take note of the qualifier ‘stable’ on orbital. A photon from outside that crosses an orbital can still miss the event horizon and leave the region. Likewise, a photon originating from inside an orbital can also escape. But a photon cannot take up a stable orbit inside the orbital level. It is a consequence of spacetime getting bent.
(1) Then mere grad student Bekenstein had proposed that to prevent a net loss of entropy from the universe when objects went inside, black holes must have entropy, specifically that this entropy was represented in the surface area. Doctor Hawking severely and even sarcastically criticized Bekenstein in front of some professors because it would mean that black holes had a temperature and were not really black. Hawking then proceeded to write a paper on the mechanism of black hole entropy. With Hawking getting the Lucasian Chair and becoming a ‘god’ in the popular imagination, that story did not get told much outside of the physics community and usually not in full detail even today. And it was called just plain Hawking radiation for a long time.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/07/2020 23:25:45
Sorry, I disagree.
Too bad, because that's not what that means.
I clearly claim that Theory D doesn't violate any law of physics
Then that claim is wrong, because the idea of black holes being able to produce an unlimited amount of new mass-energy violates conservation of mass-energy.
Therefore, in the process of creating new particle we get extra kinetic energy.
This is the part where you violate conservation of energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2020 03:58:32
Please let me know if I understand you correctly.
1. virtual particles:
The mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein (1) radiation implicitly assumes that the two virtual particles have opposite mass-energy signs, totaling zero...So, the two virtual particles have opposite mass-energy signs. Therefore, as they orbit at the speed of light their total positive and negative mass-energy is zero. Therefore, their creation do not contradicts the conservation of law.
In this view, virtual particles have both positive and negative mass-energy and how much of what shows up where depends on circumstances. So in general virtual particles do not fall on the mass shell except perhaps at the zero point.
2. Ordinary Particles:
The Virtual particles should be transformed to ordinary partials.
The idea of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation is that virtual particle pairs created near the event horizon might be pulled apart by the strong gravity.So again, the total positive energy in theordinery positive particle is identical to the total negative energy in the ordinery negative particle. Hence, we get two new real particles orbiting at the speed of light near the event of horizon, one with a positive energy and one with negative energy without consuming energy from the system itself and without contradicting the conservation of law of Mass/energy.
3. Absorbed into the black hole
The negative mass-energy particle would be absorbed into the black hole which would then contain less mass-energy. The positive energy would be free to escape, with its now real mass-energy being balanced by the loss of mass-energy of the black hole. No violation of mass-energy conservation.As the real negative mass-energy particle would be absorbed into the black hole which would then contain less mass-energy, the other real positive mass-energy particle would be escape. Therefore during this process the decreasing amount of mass-energy in the BH is identical to the amount of the Mass-energy in the other free particle.
Please confirm.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/07/2020 06:13:28
Therefore during this process the decreasing amount of mass-energy in the BH is identical to the amount of the Mass-energy in the other free particle.
Congratulations. That is exactly how it works.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 14/07/2020 17:27:18
Dear Malamute
Please let me know if I understand you correctly.
1. virtual particles:The mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein (1) radiation implicitly assumes that the two virtual particles have opposite mass-energy signs, totaling zero...So, the two virtual particles have opposite mass-energy signs. Therefore, as they orbit at the speed of light their total positive and negative mass-energy is zero. Therefore, their creation do not contradicts the conservation of law.
In this view, virtual particles have both positive and negative mass-energy and how much of what shows up where depends on circumstances. So in general virtual particles do not fall on the mass shell except perhaps at the zero point.
2. Ordinary Particles:
The Virtual particles should be transformed to ordinary partials.The idea of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation is that virtual particle pairs created near the event horizon might be pulled apart by the strong gravity.So again, the total positive energy in theordinery positive particle is identical to the total negative energy in the ordinery negative particle. Hence, we get two new real particles orbiting at the speed of light near the event of horizon, one with a positive energy and one with negative energy without consuming energy from the system itself and without contradicting the conservation of law of Mass/energy.
3. Absorbed into the black holeThe negative mass-energy particle would be absorbed into the black hole which would then contain less mass-energy. The positive energy would be free to escape, with its now real mass-energy being balanced by the loss of mass-energy of the black hole. No violation of mass-energy conservation.As the real negative mass-energy particle would be absorbed into the black hole which would then contain less mass-energy, the other real positive mass-energy particle would be escape. Therefore during this process the decreasing amount of mass-energy in the BH is identical to the amount of the Mass-energy in the other free particle.
Please confirm.
Mostly. You are correctly understanding the mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation except that the two virtual particles do not become real until one of the virtual particles is pulled through the event horizon, which is where the necessary positive/negative energy to make them real comes from.
Some qualifying comments below:
The two virtual particles do not orbit each other. For the time that they exist, their motion is determined by interaction with whatever local forces are in effect, with the exception that they do not predictably obey the energy-momentum laws of motion, having positive and negative mass-energy components not necessarily in the same place in space.
Virtual particles do not travel at light speed unless they are photons, which have no rest mass.
Virtual particle pairs are opposite in more than positive/negative mass-energy. They are opposite in all quantum values – charge, spin etc. They are opposite in the same ways as normal matter and antimatter except that real (non-virtual) antimatter, the kind they make in particle colliders, has positive mass-energy. The two virtual particles can appear from nothing, sneaking under the Uncertainty Principle radar, and disappear into nothing because they add up to nothing. All values, including mass-energy exactly cancel out.
There are other concerns I have with the Hawking-Bekenstein mechanism but I need to hash them out in my head first before I can put them into words.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/07/2020 22:32:15
Nothing is ever pulled out.
I don't think that's what he's arguing. When he says "pulled through the event horizon", I think he means being pulled into the black hole from the outside.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 15/07/2020 00:42:37
You are correctly understanding the mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation except that the two virtual particles do not become real until one of the virtual particles is pulled through the event horizonReference please. Nothing, not even virtual particles, can be pulled backwards in time. The virtual particles form outside, which happens frequently, and occasionally one of the two manages not to be pulled in. Nothing is ever pulled out.
I'd have to look up to get a decent wording of how the virtual particles are eventually imparted with positive and negative energy. I'm no expert.
which is where the necessary positive/negative energy to make them real comes from.
I was explaining the mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation not giving my own opinion. As I alluded to earlier, I have problems with it myself.
Here is a math free overview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview
If you want an in-depth presentation of the mechanism of black hole radiation, try this.
https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking%20Particle%20Creation.pdf
Personally, I have been through Hawking’s 1975 paper a few times and I still get lost. (And this is less formal than his 1974 paper in Physics Review.)
The problem I have with the idea is that for one of the virtual particles to fall through the black hole takes only finite time from the viewpoint of that particle but infinite time from the viewpoint of the other particle which does not fall through. Since the energy of the escaping particle is supposed to be supplied by the captured particle being absorbed, that energy should only reach the escaping particle an infinite time in the future. I have tried to figure out whether this is accounted for in the math and it does not appear to be. The Hawking paper linked above discusses in a speculative manner about space-time maybe being quantized. This might reduce infinite time to finite time but the way I see it there must still be a delay and the mechanism does not work as advertised. One of the virtual particles is isolated from its partner for a non-zero time before getting the energy transfusion needed to become real. In quantum theory as I understand it, this is a non-starter situation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/07/2020 07:49:42
Congratulations. That is exactly how it works.Thanks
However, I hope that we all agree by now that there is no way to bypass the conservation of mass/energy and it must be absolute.
Mostly. You are correctly understanding the mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation except that the two virtual particles do not become real until one of the virtual particles is pulled through the event horizon, which is where the necessary positive/negative energy to make them real comes from.Thanks for your great explanation.
Some qualifying comments below:
The two virtual particles do not orbit each other. For the time that they exist, their motion is determined by interaction with whatever local forces are in effect, with the exception that they do not predictably obey the energy-momentum laws of motion, having positive and negative mass-energy components not necessarily in the same place in space.
Virtual particles do not travel at light speed unless they are photons, which have no rest mass.
Virtual particle pairs are opposite in more than positive/negative mass-energy. They are opposite in all quantum values – charge, spin etc. They are opposite in the same ways as normal matter and antimatter except that real (non-virtual) antimatter, the kind they make in particle colliders, has positive mass-energy. The two virtual particles can appear from nothing, sneaking under the Uncertainty Principle radar, and disappear into nothing because they add up to nothing. All values, including mass-energy exactly cancel out.
So, the total positive energy in the ordinary positive particle (matter) is identical to the total negative energy in the ordinary negative particle (antimatter).
They do not orbit each other and they do not orbit at the speed of light. So, at what speed they orbit at the moment of their creation near the event horizon?
The particle/matter has a positive energy and the antimatter/antiparticle has identical negative energy. therefore, they both do not consume energy for their creation from the system itself and without contradicting the law conservation of Mass/energy.
I assume that there is a possibility that if they stay long enough near each other, they should eliminate each other.
So, theoretically, some of the new created matter/antimatter or particles/antiparticles are eliminating each other before they even say "Good morning" to each other".
However:
1. Do you have an idea why the antimatter/antiparticles is falling into the BH while the other partial/matter is pulled through the event horizon? Why can't we assume the opposite? Could it be that our body is made out of antimatter?
2. As for any particle/matter there must be antiparticle/antimatter, than in order to fulfill the conservation law of mass/energy - the total mass of the antimatter in our whole Universe must be identical to the total mass of the matter.
However, if I understand it correctly, based on the BBT, the total mass of the matter is much bigger than the total mass of the antimatter.
So, how our scientists could claim that the conservation of mass/energy is absolute, while based on the BBT there is much more matter than antimatter in our universe? How could it be that during the Big Bang process, more matter had been created than antimatter?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/07/2020 15:18:09
However, I hope that we all agree by now that there is no way to bypass the conservation of mass/energy and it must be absolute.
And yet you'll soon be stating again that gravity can create energy, which violates conservation of energy...
1. Do you have an idea why the antimatter/antiparticles is falling into the BH while the other partial/matter is pulled through the event horizon? Why can't we assume the opposite?
In black holes that are small enough (and therefore hot enough) to produce matter and antimatter particles, it's random. The amount of matter and antimatter emitted by the black hole is roughly equal because both respond to gravity in the same way.
So, how our scientists could claim that the conservation of mass/energy is absolute, while based on the BBT there is much more matter than antimatter in our universe?
Your model has the same problem, since black holes should release antimatter at the same rate as matter.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 15/07/2020 17:20:01
So, the total positive energy in the ordinary positive particle (matter) is identical to the total negative energy in the ordinary negative particle (antimatter).
In real (non-virtual) particles, both matter and antimatter have positive mass-energy.
Virtual particle pairs pop up spontaneously all over the place because the Uncertainty Principle says they can. These pairs have opposite signs in all quantum values, including mass-energy. They disappear spontaneously, annihilating each other completely because they exactly cancel out to zero.
They do not orbit each other and they do not orbit at the speed of light. So, at what speed they orbit at the moment of their creation near the event horizon?
They are not in any kind of orbit. The lowest possible orbit is well above the event horizon. An orbit is a path that can followed around a gravitating body without exerting any additional force. From near the event horizon it is possible to go up (hard) or down (easy) but it is not possible to stay at the same level without applying continuous force. The gravitational gradient – the difference in gravitational force between two levels – is much too high.
What motion the virtual particles may have at creation is not predictable. Recall that they do not strictly obey energy-momentum rules and real particles do. This is called being off the mass shell.
The particle/matter has a positive energy and the antimatter/antiparticle has identical negative energy. therefore, they both do not consume energy for their creation from the system itself and without contradicting the law conservation of Mass/energy.
I assume that there is a possibility that if they stay long enough near each other, they should eliminate each other.
So, theoretically, some of the new created matter/antimatter or particles/antiparticles are eliminating each other before they even say "Good morning" to each other".
The lifetime of a virtual particle pair is limited by the amount of rest mass in the equivalent real (on the mass shell) particles. The mathematics of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle regulates how long a given mass can exist ‘under the radar’. The more the mass of the real particle equivalent, the shorter the time allowed.e
One way to think of a virtual particle pair is that it is really a single particle making a little loop in time, positive mass-energy in one direction and negative mass-energy in the other. The time reversal would also account for the reversal of the quantum numbers as well.
Since photons have zero rest-mass, virtual photons can exist forever. Virtual photons are the carriers of the electromagnetic force, with photon and anti-photon virtual particles exchanged between the two charged bodies, like electrons.
However:
1. Do you have an idea why the antimatter/antiparticles is falling into the BH while the other partial/matter is pulled through the event horizon? Why can't we assume the opposite? Could it be that our body is made out of antimatter?
Good observation. That is a question I have also. It seems to me that which one should be absorbed should be random, with a net balance of no change and no Hawking-Bekenstein radiation. OTOH if one considers the negative mass-energy particle to be going backward in time, it should be the one escaping and the positive mass-energy one going into the event horizon. But to understand what really happens in a strong gravitational field in detail requires calculation. And at my age I have absolutely no intention of ever looking at tensors again, much less horribly non-linear ones.
Whether we are labeled matter or antimatter is a ‘matter’ :) of convention. All the real mass-energy in the universe having the same sign is what, ahem, ‘matters’. :D
2. As for any particle/matter there must be antiparticle/antimatter, then in order to fulfill the conservation law of mass/energy - the total mass of the antimatter in our whole Universe must be identical to the total mass of the matter.
However, if I understand it correctly, based on the BBT, the total mass of the matter is much bigger than the total mass of the antimatter.
So, how our scientists could claim that the conservation of mass/energy is absolute, while based on the BBT there is much more matter than antimatter in our universe? How could it be that during the Big Bang process, more matter had been created than antimatter?
First, the absence of anti-matter at large in the universe violates symmetry laws but not mass-energy conservation. Real anti-matter has positive mass-energy just like real normal matter.
In high energy collider events, matter and anti-matter are both produced in equal proportions. There is no ‘law’ against antimatter. It is a very good question why the universe at large has only matter. There should have been equal amounts of each type. Since matter and anti-matter cancel each other’s quantum values, they should have all become energy in the form of photons. Matter with mass should not exist. Yet obviously it does.
One possibility is an oddity in quantum theory. A particle called the B meson has the most unusual property of oscillating between matter and anti-matter states. That is, it spontaneously reverses all its quantum signs. Not mass-energy of course. That always remains positive. This is a real particle, not a virtual particle pair. The Standard Model predicts not only this but that it should spend a touch more time in the matter state than the antimatter state. This has been confirmed experimentally at both Fermilab and at CERN although they disagree somewhat on the exact numerical values involved.
In the B meson scenario, as the original (hypothesized) equal amounts of matter and antimatter annihilated each other into photons, these energetic photons decayed into more matter and antimatter particles. But among the new particles would be B mesons, which would stack the deck in favor of normal matter. Eventually everything would pass through a B meson state and things would settle down to only normal matter and photons. The B meson is a very massive particle and decays quickly into other particles. It has enough mass to decay into the familiar (and stable) protons, neutrons, electrons etc. that we are familiar with.
I have an idea of my own that the bias toward familiar matter could be related to a mechanism I proposed that caused all mass-energy in the universe to have a positive sign. For the mass-energy part of the idea see:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79979.0
I have not gotten around to extending this idea into the matter/antimatter issue because it is complicated, involving Charge Parity Time symmetry violations. I need to dig into recent experimental results at CERN before finalizing the idea.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/07/2020 15:23:41
First, the absence of anti-matter at large in the universe violates symmetry laws but not mass-energy conservation. Real anti-matter has positive mass-energy just like real normal matter.Thanks Malamute
So, you claim that the absence of anti-matter at large in the universe violates symmetry laws.
Let's try to find a solution for that:
We already know that due to the mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein the decreasing amount of mass-energy in the BH is identical to the amount of the Mass-energy in the other free particle.
In other words, as one of the pair (antiparticle/antimatter) is falling in, the other one (particle/matter) is ejected outwards.
Our scientists assume that the SMBH is only made out of matter. Therefore, the falling matter should decrease the mass of the SMBH.
However, we really don't know if it is made out of matter or antimatter as in both cases they have a positive mass energy and the same gravity force.
Hence, if the falling particle is antimatter, why can't we just assume that the SMBH is made out of antimatter?
In this case, we might find that the total matter in the whole Universe is identical to the total Antimatter that is existed inside all the BH+MBH+SMBH in our universe.
Therefore, we can get a perfect balance between the antimatter to the matter.
Hence, do you agree that in this case we can't claim that there is absence of anti-matter in our universe and therefore, our universe doesn't violate the symmetry law any more?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2020 15:47:27
, why can't we just assume that the SMBH is made out of antimatter?Because, if there was that much antimatter about, it would have been annihilated by reaction with normal matter before it got the chance to form a black hole.
However, Kryptid's point makes it irrelevant,.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/07/2020 16:36:41
Hence, if the falling particle is antimatter, why can't we just assume that the SMBH is made out of antimatter?
A black hole made from the collapse of antimatter is identical to one made from the collapse of matter. This is one of the things that is meant by the phrase "black holes have no hair".
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/07/2020 16:40:27
You have missed the point., why can't we just assume that the SMBH is made out of antimatter?Because, if there was that much antimatter about, it would have been annihilated by reaction with normal matter before it got the chance to form a black hole.
How antimatter by itself could annihilate itself?
We claim that the SMBH is ONLY made out of antimatter.
The falling matter is also ONLY antimatter.
So, as falling antimatter gets to a big barrel of antimatter, how can you claim for annihilated by reaction with normal matter while there is no normal matter?
A black hole made from the collapse of antimatter is identical to one made from the collapse of matter. This is one of the things that is meant by the phrase "black holes have no hair".So, do you agree that a SMBH could be made only by antimatter?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/07/2020 16:43:27
So, do you agree that a SMBH could be made only by antimatter?
It could happen in principle, but it's extremely unlikely since there is so little antimatter in the Universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/07/2020 18:54:25
ThanksSo, do you agree that a SMBH could be made only by antimatter?It could happen in principle, but it's extremely unlikely since there is so little antimatter in the Universe.
So, you agree that in principle the SMBH could be full with antimatter.
However, you claim that it is extremely unlike.
Now, do you accept the idea of symmetry law?
If so, and as you claim: "there is so little antimatter in the Universe", than in order to balance the symmetry law, the antimatter must be accumulated somewhere.
Hence, don't you agree that in order to fulfill the symmetry law, the antimatter should be accumulated at those big barrels that we call BH or SMBH? Therefore, the chance that the BH/SMBH is full with Antimatter is almost 100% or at least very high?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2020 19:21:01
NoThanksSo, do you agree that a SMBH could be made only by antimatter?It could happen in principle, but it's extremely unlikely since there is so little antimatter in the Universe.
So, you agree that in principle the SMBH could be full with antimatter.
However, you claim that it is extremely unlike.
Now, do you accept the idea of symmetry law?
If so, and as you claim: "there is so little antimatter in the Universe", than in order to balance the symmetry law, the antimatter must be accumulated somewhere.
Hence, don't you agree that in order to fulfill the symmetry law, the antimatter should be accumulated at those big barrels that we call BH or SMBH? Therefore, the chance that the BH/SMBH is full with Antimatter is almost 100% or at least very high?
At best it is 50:50
Either it's in the SMBH, or the symmetry is broken.
We have no way to say which.
However, there is at least one reason to say that it's not in the SMBH- it would have reacted with normal matter before it got a chance to form black holes.
So it's not "almost 100%", it's practically zero.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 17/07/2020 19:33:19
First, the absence of anti-matter at large in the universe violates symmetry laws but not mass-energy conservation. Real anti-matter has positive mass-energy just like real normal matter.Thanks Malamute
So, you claim that the absence of anti-matter at large in the universe violates symmetry laws.
Let's try to find a solution for that:
We already know that due to the mechanism of Hawking-Bekenstein the decreasing amount of mass-energy in the BH is identical to the amount of the Mass-energy in the other free particle.
In other words, as one of the pair (antiparticle/antimatter) is falling in, the other one (particle/matter) is ejected outwards.
Our scientists assume that the SMBH is only made out of matter. Therefore, the falling matter should decrease the mass of the SMBH.
However, we really don't know if it is made out of matter or antimatter as in both cases they have a positive mass energy and the same gravity force.
Hence, if the falling particle is antimatter, why can't we just assume that the SMBH is made out of antimatter?
In this case, we might find that the total matter in the whole Universe is identical to the total Antimatter that is existed inside all the BH+MBH+SMBH in our universe.
Therefore, we can get a perfect balance between the antimatter to the matter.
Hence, do you agree that in this case we can't claim that there is absence of anti-matter in our universe and therefore, our universe doesn't violate the symmetry law any more?
You seem to be confusing negative mass-energy particles with antimatter. The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy. It just has other quantum values reversed – negative charge protons, positive charge electrons etc.
By contrast, virtual particle pairs have one with positive mass-energy and the other with negative mass-energy. The is no reason that the positive mass-energy one has to be normal matter, e.g., positive charge protons. It could be antimatter, e.g., negative charge protons. The same for the negative mass-energy partner. The negative mass-energy partner would have opposite quantum values to keep conservation laws. Unless there is some unknown mechanism at work, a half and half distribution would be expected.
Black holes have the usual ‘down’ kind of gravity, attracting matter in spirals that we see getting denser and hotter as they get closer to the black hole. Black holes cannot consist of negative mass-energy because that would be repulsive instead of attractive.
Since there is as far as we know no noticeable amount of antimatter (positive mass-energy remember) in the universe at large, the accumulation of enough anti-matter in one neighborhood to make a SMBH, or even a small one, is extremely improbable.
For the matter/antimatter symmetry to be resolved by black holes being antimatter would require that the mass of all matter in the universe not in black holes be equal to the amount of mass in black holes. While there are SMBH in the heart of most galaxies, they constitute only a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy. (Not counting dark matter) Other black holes within a galaxy contribute only a miniscule amount to the black hole mass total. Unless there are somehow a whole bunch of black holes or truly colossal ones that have not been noticed, this condition is not satisfied.
There are undoubtedly weird things to be discovered about the universe, but this does not seem to be one of them. But keep trying! Who knows? :)
Post by: Kryptid on 17/07/2020 21:13:11
Hence, don't you agree that in order to fulfill the symmetry law, the antimatter should be accumulated at those big barrels that we call BH or SMBH? Therefore, the chance that the BH/SMBH is full with Antimatter is almost 100% or at least very high?
Absolutely not. There is no evidence for it. Black holes do not preferably ingest antimatter over matter. It is equally likely to consume either one.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/07/2020 03:43:41
You seem to be confusing negative mass-energy particles with antimatter.No, I'm not confused
Black holes have the usual ‘down’ kind of gravity, attracting matter in spirals that we see getting denser and hotter as they get closer to the black hole. Black holes cannot consist of negative mass-energy because that would be repulsive instead of attractive.Yes, I fully agree.
Therefore, we only discuss on new created particle pair (Particle/matter + antiparticle/antimatter) with positive mass energy.
The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy. It just has other quantum values reversed – negative charge protons, positive charge electrons etc.Yes again. We discuss on antimatter with positive mass energy.
So, for example the new created particle pair could be as follow:
Particle/matter - Positive charge as electrons
Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons.
Black holes do not preferably ingest antimatter over matter. It is equally likely to consume either one.Well, you discuss about the matter that it consumes.
However, I discuss about the matter inside the BH.
Do you agree that the chance to have a BH with antimatter might be similar to the chance for a BH with matter?
So, let's go back to Hawking-Bekenstein mechanisn
We already know that due to that mechanism as one of the pair (antiparticle/antimatter) is falling in, the other one (particle/matter) is ejected outwards.
Therefore, for a BH which is based on matter, falling antimatter should decrease its mass and eventually it must be evaporated.
However, in the same token, for a BH which is based on Antimatter, a falling Antimatter should increase its mass.
Hence, Hawking had estimated that in the case of a black hole (with matter) formed in the early universe with a mass of less than approximately 10^15 g would have evaporated completely by the present day.
However, it is very clear that for a BH with antimatter should increase its total mass due to the falling antimatter.
Therefore, statistically we could have two kinds of BHs
One kind of BH must be evaporated over time while the other kind must increase its mass over time.
Therefore, this could also be the answer for the following problem of the symmetry law:
For the matter/antimatter symmetry to be resolved by black holes being antimatter would require that the mass of all matter in the universe not in black holes be equal to the amount of mass in black holes. While there are SMBH in the heart of most galaxies, they constitute only a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy. (Not counting dark matter) Other black holes within a galaxy contribute only a miniscule amount to the black hole mass total. Unless there are somehow a whole bunch of black holes or truly colossal ones that have not been noticed, this condition is not satisfied.The total created amount of matter from day one of the Universe is identical to the total created antimatter.
However, as many BHs had been evaporated, we think that there is no balance.
Therefore, In the core of the Milky Way Galaxy there is a SMBH which is full with antimatter.
Due to the new created particle pair process around it, one antiparticle is falling in and increases it mass, while the other one is ejected outwards and also increasing the total matter around it.
Therefore, do you agree that we can get a system that simultaneously increases the total Antimatter mass of the SMBH and the matter around the BH without violating the symmetry law or the conservation of energy law?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/07/2020 05:00:47
However, I discuss about the matter inside the BH.
I've already told you, black holes themselves are neither matter nor antimatter.
Do you agree that the chance to have a BH with antimatter might be similar to the chance for a BH with matter?
Yes, the case is zero for both. See my previous reply.
We already know that due to that mechanism as one of the pair (antiparticle/antimatter) is falling in, the other one (particle/matter) is ejected outwards.
That's wrong. Either the matter or the antimatter particle can fall in or escape. The probability is equal for both because both respond identically to gravity.
Therefore, for a BH which is based on matter, falling antimatter should decrease its mass and eventually it must be evaporated.
However, in the same token, for a BH which is based on Antimatter, a falling Antimatter should increase its mass.
Black holes aren't made of matter or antimatter, like I said before. They are basically raw mass/energy with a couple of other properties such as spin and electric charge. It's meaningless to call it either matter or antimatter. What causes the black hole to evaporate is the consumption of negative mass/energy, not antimatter.
Due to the new created particle pair process around it, one antiparticle is falling in and increases it mass, while the other one is ejected outwards and also increasing the total matter around it.
No, that breaks conservation of mass.
Therefore, do you agree that we can get a system that simultaneously increases the total Antimatter mass of the SMBH and the matter around the BH without violating the symmetry law or the conservation of energy law?
No.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/07/2020 07:07:58
Black holes aren't made of matter or antimatter, like I said before. They are basically raw mass/energy with a couple of other properties such as spin and electric charge. It's meaningless to call it either matter or antimatter. What causes the black hole to evaporate is the consumption of negative mass/energy, not antimatter.Sorry, the explanation is very clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon."
You have already confirmed it:
The idea of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation is that virtual particle pairs created near the event horizon might be pulled apart by the strong gravity.
So again, the total positive energy in the ordinary positive particle is identical to the total negative energy in the ordinary negative particle. Hence, we get two new real particles orbiting at the speed of light near the event of horizon, one with a positive energy and one with negative energy without consuming energy from the system itself and without contradicting the conservation of law of Mass/energy.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 14/07/2020 03:58:32Congratulations. That is exactly how it works.
Therefore during this process the decreasing amount of mass-energy in the BH is identical to the amount of the Mass-energy in the other free particle.
I don't think that's what he's arguing. When he says "pulled through the event horizon", I think he means being pulled into the black hole from the outside.
Hence, as the antiparticle is falling into the BH, it decreases the total mass energy of the BH by the amount of energy in its mass (E=Mc^2) due to the idea that in the BH there is matter while the falling antiparticle is considered as antimatter.
Actually based on your explanation:
I fully agree with you that BHs "are basically raw mass/energy with a couple of other properties such as spin and electric charge.".
However, if the ejected particle consumes its mass energy from the BH is should consume it from this energy from the spin or electric charge of the BH and not from the mass of the BH itself.
However, based on Hawking_radiation the energy must come from the BH mass itself and not from the BH' energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)."
Therefore, do you agree that there is only one explanation for that:
What causes the black hole to evaporate is the consumption of negative mass/energy which is by definition the falling antimatter or antiparticle into the BH?
In any case, In this article they don't say even one word about the Kinetic and potential energy of the new created particles.
Therefore, they don't ask to reduce the BH energy by the kinetic + potential energy that the new particles have got due to the mighty gravity force of the BH.
Hence, do you at least agree that the particle pair's kinetic + Potential energy isn't deducted from the BH energy as it is due to the gravity force itself?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/07/2020 14:19:37
What do you understand from the following?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:07:58You are indeed still confusing the two, as has been pointed out over a dozen times. Yet since your goal it to troll and not to learn, you will continue to do this.
Hence, as the antiparticle is falling into the BH, it decreases the total mass energy of the BH by the amount of energy in its mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/07/2020 17:06:33
Oh look! No mention of antimatter or an antiparticle being what reduces the mass of the black hole.Is it real?
It is stated clearly:
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. "
So, do you agree that they discuss on the particle pair?
Do you also agree that in any new created particle pair there is a one particle + another antiparticle?
Didn't you see the following message?
So, if we you wish to call a particle - matter, do you agree that we have to call the other one antiparticle or antimatter?QuoteQuote from: Malamute Lover on Yesterday at 19:33:19Yes again. We discuss on antimatter with positive mass energy.
The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy. It just has other quantum values reversed – negative charge protons, positive charge electrons etc.
So, for example the new created particle pair could be as follow:
Particle/matter - Positive charge as electrons
Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons.
In any case, what do you understand from: "in order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). "
So, do you agree that if the falling particle is actually "Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons." while the black hole has a positive energy, (or vice versa) than:
"This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."
If you still think differently, than please introduce your explanation for the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."
Post by: Kryptid on 18/07/2020 17:10:08
Sorry, the explanation is very clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon."
You have already confirmed it:
None of that contradicts what I said. Nowhere does that say that only antimatter particles can fall into the black hole. Yes, the Hawking process does cause the black hole to lose mass (which is true regardless of whether it's the matter particle or antimatter particle falling in).
Hence, as the antiparticle is falling into the BH, it decreases the total mass energy of the BH by the amount of energy in its mass (E=Mc^2) due to the idea that in the BH there is matter while the falling antiparticle is considered as antimatter.
That's not how that works. Matter annihilating with antimatter doesn't destroy mass/energy. The same amount remains after the annihilation. It just changes form. It's the negative mass/energy of the infalling particle/anti-particle that cancels out some of the mass of the black hole. That will happen regardless of whether the particle is matter or antimatter.
However, if the ejected particle consumes its mass energy from the BH is should consume it from this energy from the spin or electric charge of the BH and not from the mass of the BH itself.
This is wrong because a black hole with no charge and no spin will still evaporate over time.
What causes the black hole to evaporate is the consumption of negative mass/energy which is by definition the falling antimatter or antiparticle into the BH?
Please stop confusing negative mass/energy with antimatter. They are not the same thing.
Hence, do you at least agree that the particle pair's kinetic + Potential energy isn't deducted from the BH energy as it is due to the gravity force itself?
No, because, as I have said for the millionth time, that would violate conservation of energy. The total energy of the system cannot increase.
So, do you agree that if the falling particle is actually "Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons." while the black hole has a positive energy, (or vice versa) than:
Don't confuse negative charge with negative mass/energy. They are not the same thing.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 18/07/2020 18:31:47
You seem to be confusing negative mass-energy particles with antimatter.No, I'm not confused
Then you understand that:
Antimatter created in collider events has positive mass energy. The total mass-energy of the input is conserved. This includes both the mass of the colliding particles and their energy of motion. The results may differ in mass and in energy but the total mass-energy is conserved. Likewise all quantum values are conserved.
In virtual particle pairs (which appear and disappear by themselves, no collider needed) one partner will be normal matter and the other antimatter and one partner will have positive mass-energy and the other negative mass-energy.
As far as we know, the normal matter one might have either positive mass-energy or negative mass-energy and the antimatter on might have positive mass-energy or negative mass-energy.
Possibilities for virtual particle pairs are therefore:
Possibility A:
One partner is normal matter and has positive mass-energy
The other partner is antimatter and has negative mass-energy
Possibility B:
One partner is antimatter and has positive mass-energy
The other partner is normal matter and has negative mass-energy
Is this what you understand? Based on what you posted below, that does not appear to be the case.
Black holes have the usual ‘down’ kind of gravity, attracting matter in spirals that we see getting denser and hotter as they get closer to the black hole. Black holes cannot consist of negative mass-energy because that would be repulsive instead of attractive.Yes, I fully agree.
Therefore, we only discuss on new created particle pair (Particle/matter + antiparticle/antimatter) with positive mass energy.
I see that you do NOT understand the above.
In a virtual particle pair, one has positive mass-energy, the other has negative mass-energy. In Hawking-Bekenstein radiation, it is presumed that the negative mass-energy particle is always the one to fall through the event horizon. Adding negative mass-energy to the black hole reduces its mass-energy. That allows the positive mass-energy particle left outside to become real rather than disappearing as virtual particles ordinarily do.
As I have already stated, I have a number of issues with this scenario but that is nonetheless what the published Hawking-Bekenstein radiation mechanism says.
The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy. It just has other quantum values reversed – negative charge protons, positive charge electrons etc.Yes again. We discuss on antimatter with positive mass energy.
So, for example the new created particle pair could be as follow:
Particle/matter - Positive charge as electrons
Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons.
In collider events, the result always preserves the mass-energy and quantum value totals of the input. Since the mass-energy of the input is always positive, because that is the only kind we can get our hands on, the mass-energy of the output will always be positive.
The result does not have to be a pair of particles. It might be but often not. All that matters is that the total of mass-energy and quantum numbers in the output balances the input. I think you may still be confusing the real particle result of collider events with spontaneously created virtual particle pairs.
Black holes do not preferably ingest antimatter over matter. It is equally likely to consume either one.Well, you discuss about the matter that it consumes.
However, I discuss about the matter inside the BH.
Do you agree that the chance to have a BH with antimatter might be similar to the chance for a BH with matter?
So, let's go back to Hawking-Bekenstein mechanisn
We already know that due to that mechanism as one of the pair (antiparticle/antimatter) is falling in, the other one (particle/matter) is ejected outwards.
Therefore, for a BH which is based on matter, falling antimatter should decrease its mass and eventually it must be evaporated.
However, in the same token, for a BH which is based on Antimatter, a falling Antimatter should increase its mass.
Hence, Hawking had estimated that in the case of a black hole (with matter) formed in the early universe with a mass of less than approximately 10^15 g would have evaporated completely by the present day.
However, it is very clear that for a BH with antimatter should increase its total mass due to the falling antimatter.
Therefore, statistically we could have two kinds of BHs
One kind of BH must be evaporated over time while the other kind must increase its mass over time.
You definitely do not understand that real antimatter, the kind that can result from collider events has positive mass-energy. A black hole that got formed out of antimatter would, to an outside observer, act exactly like one formed with normal matter.
Therefore, this could also be the answer for the following problem of the symmetry law:For the matter/antimatter symmetry to be resolved by black holes being antimatter would require that the mass of all matter in the universe not in black holes be equal to the amount of mass in black holes. While there are SMBH in the heart of most galaxies, they constitute only a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy. (Not counting dark matter) Other black holes within a galaxy contribute only a miniscule amount to the black hole mass total. Unless there are somehow a whole bunch of black holes or truly colossal ones that have not been noticed, this condition is not satisfied.The total created amount of matter from day one of the Universe is identical to the total created antimatter.
However, as many BHs had been evaporated, we think that there is no balance.
Therefore, In the core of the Milky Way Galaxy there is a SMBH which is full with antimatter.
Due to the new created particle pair process around it, one antiparticle is falling in and increases it mass, while the other one is ejected outwards and also increasing the total matter around it.
Therefore, do you agree that we can get a system that simultaneously increases the total Antimatter mass of the SMBH and the matter around the BH without violating the symmetry law or the conservation of energy law?
Do you see the part that the mass of all the black holes around is only a very small fraction of the mass of the ordinary matter that is around? If the universe started off with equal amounts of ordinary matter and antimatter – a reasonable assumption – there is still a bias toward ordinary matter. Where is all the antimatter that is not in black holes. And how did antimatter get separated from ordinary matter to get locked up in black holes?
Go back to the first part of this post and look over what I said.
Post by: Halc on 18/07/2020 18:57:30
The only Hawking radiation from a SMBH is massless things, and there's no such thing as an anti-photon. Just a pair of photons with positive and negative energy respectively. If a virtual matter/antimatter pair manages to get produced at the event horizon, neither escapes, so there is no net effect to the mass of the black hole.Oh look! No mention of antimatter or an antiparticle being what reduces the mass of the black hole.Is it real?
It is stated clearly:
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. "
Quote
Do you also agree that in any new created particle pair there is a one particle + another antiparticle?No. There's no such thing as anti-light or an anti-graviton.
Quote
The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy.Yes, because such colliders utilize energy taken from outside. Hawking radiation has no such energy source, despite your continued equivocation of force, gravitational field, and energy, all of which are different things.
Quote
So, if we you wish to call a particle - matter, do you agree that we have to call the other one antiparticle or antimatter?Again, neither particle is antimatter since there is no antiphoton.
Quote
So, do you agree that if the falling particle is actually "Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons."No, because the virtual proton would have also fallen in and the outside observer would observer nothing. Only massless stuff escapes a black hole of any reasonable mass. There is no radiation of any matter or antimatter.
while the black hole has a positive energy, (or vice versa) than:
"This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/07/2020 19:38:46
It's not emitted by the black hole (nothing can be)
The radiation is produced by the space round the hole.
And that space is just the same as the stuff between you and your computer. It produces virtual particle/ antiparticle pairs all the time. You don't normally notice because they recombine.
Of course, if one "falls" into a black hole there's nothing left for it's twin to recombine with.
The corollary of that fact is that the radiation from near a black hole can't depend on what sort of matter the hole was created from, because the hole isn't what makes the radiation.
So, even in the practically impossible situation of a black hole that formed from anti-matter- the radiation would be identical to that from a hole made from normal matter.
There's a reason why black holes don't have hair.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 18/07/2020 20:44:22
The only Hawking radiation from a SMBH is massless things, and there's no such thing as an anti-photon. Just a pair of photons with positive and negative energy respectively. If a virtual matter/antimatter pair manages to get produced at the event horizon, neither escapes, so there is no net effect to the mass of the black hole.Oh look! No mention of antimatter or an antiparticle being what reduces the mass of the black hole.Is it real?
It is stated clearly:
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. "
Since it is gravitational gradient that is supposed to be producing the effect, the larger the black hole, the smaller the Hawking-Bekenstein process. Large black holes would emit only low energy photons which would be more than made up for by the Cosmic Microwave Background falling into the black hole. Only very small black holes would have the gravitational gradient steep enough to produce actual particles with mass.
A photon is its own anti-particle. Virtual photons do in fact come in pairs. One with positive energy and one with negative energy.
It is not on the event horizon but just above it that the Hawking-Bekenstein process takes place. But you do raise a good point. A virtual particle of sufficient momentum to escape the steep gravitational gradient would be an exceedingly rare event. In the vast majority of virtual particle pair creation, they would both fall in. Since photons always travel at light speed, they can more easily escape the vicinity of the event horizon.
QuoteDo you also agree that in any new created particle pair there is a one particle + another antiparticle?No. There's no such thing as anti-light or an anti-graviton.
As previously noted, a photon is its own antiparticle. And virtual photons do come in positive and negative energy values. We are not even sure there are gravitons or what they are like or if virtual graviton pairs occur. If virtual gravitons are in fact the carriers of the gravitational force then they would come in pairs since that is how exchange virtual particles work.
QuoteThe antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy.Yes, because such colliders utilize energy taken from outside. Hawking radiation has no such energy source, despite your continued equivocation of force, gravitational field, and energy, all of which are different things.
Forces involve energy. Gravitational fields have negative energy, pulling instead of pushing. While General Relativity involves traveling along geodesics in curved spacetime, unless one is solving GR tensor equations it is perfectly legitimate to talk about the force of gravity. I do not see your point.
Of course, there is. In matter/antimatter annihilation processes, initially a pair of photons is produced. If this is a high energy event as in a collider, the photons will typically decay into massive particles because there is sufficient energy to produce the required masses. In less energetic events, such as positron emission decay in Potassium 40 and subsequent annihilation with an electron, the photons have insufficient energy for mass creation. The two photons created by the annihilation have the same frequency but opposite polarization and travel in exactly opposite directions. Since photons have no rest-mass, zero charge and zero spin, there is nothing else to balance. In this way they obey conservation laws.QuoteSo, if we you wish to call a particle - matter, do you agree that we have to call the other one antiparticle or antimatter?Again, neither particle is antimatter since there is no antiphoton.
Virtual photon pairs would work the same except that one would have positive energy and the other negative energy.
QuoteSo, do you agree that if the falling particle is actually "Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons."No, because the virtual proton would have also fallen in and the outside observer would observer nothing. Only massless stuff escapes a black hole of any reasonable mass. There is no radiation of any matter or antimatter.
while the black hole has a positive energy, (or vice versa) than:
"This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."
As I mentioned earlier, the orphaned virtual particle would need to have suitable momentum to escape the steep gravitational gradient. That much energy headed in the right direction (momentum is a vector) sounds very rare.
At this time, I will add one more point to my criticism of Harking-Bekenstein radiation. It all started with Bekenstein wondering what happened to the entropy associated with whatever fell into a black hole. It would seem that the entropy of the universe would decrease, which is a no-no. However, because of the extreme time-dilation as one approaches the event horizon, an object dropped into it will never actually reach the event horizon from the viewpoint of an outside observer. As far as the universe is concerned, the object and its entropy never go away. No need to invoke the emission of compensating radiation to balance the books.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/07/2020 21:05:28
Do you see the part that the mass of all the black holes around is only a very small fraction of the mass of the ordinary matter that is around? If the universe started off with equal amounts of ordinary matter and antimatter – a reasonable assumption – there is still a bias toward ordinary matter. Where is all the antimatter that is not in black holes. And how did antimatter get separated from ordinary matter to get locked up in black holes?
This is a good point. If Dave's model was right, then there should be an equal mass of antimatter inside of Sagittarius A* as there is matter in the Milky Way galaxy (or, possibly, the black hole should have even more mass than the rest of the galaxy because some of the mass of the galaxy could have escaped into intergalactic space over time). But that's nowhere remotely correct. The mass of that black hole is about 4.1 million solar masses, whereas the total mass of the Milky Way is about 1 trillion solar masses. The whole galaxy is over 200,000 times more massive than the central black hole. This fact alone falsifies Dave's model.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2020 14:16:53
Sorry, I totally disagree.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 07:07:58No, because, as I have said for the millionth time, that would violate conservation of energy. The total energy of the system cannot increase.
Hence, do you at least agree that the particle pair's kinetic + Potential energy isn't deducted from the BH energy as it is due to the gravity force itself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle–antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[citation needed] As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole."
So, it is clearly stated that
1. It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
So, hawking claims specifically for: "black hole's gravitational energy" that boosts the new created particle.
Without it, there is no new particle.
If so, why do you insist that gravity force couldn't contribute its force/energy to speed up the new created particle at v and sets it at a radius r?
If you insist that it is not due to gravity force, than how the new created particle gets there at radius r and at velocity v?
Who is in charge to deliver the energy for that activity?
Please be aware that in that article it is stated that the energy for the escape particle is taken from the BH mass, while there is not even a single word about the missing energy due to the particle kinetic or potential energy.
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)."
So, if Hawking had told us that the velocity is due to gravity energy, how can you contradicts his statement?
Do you estimate that his knowledge in energy conservation is so poor?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/07/2020 15:02:24
Please be aware that in that article it is stated that the energy for the escape particle is taken from the BH mass
Exactly. This is why black holes can't create mass/energy. All of the mass of the particles that it emits causes its mass to decrease by the exact same amount. This is the opposite of what your model claims.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2020 15:36:11
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
No.
Particle- antiparticle pairs (Most commonly photons) are produced in space at random , all the time.
You don't need the BH to do that.
What the field gradient near the event horizon of the BH does is offers a way to keep the particle (at the expense of the BH becoming slightly less massive).
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2020 15:59:05
Exactly. This is why black holes can't create mass/energy. All of the mass of the particles that it emits causes its mass to decrease by the exact same amount. This is the opposite of what your model claims.
Your message directly contradicts with Hawking explanation as he claims that "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".
So, based on hawking, BH's gravity is the ultimate source for the velocity of the new created particle.
Why Hawking didn't reduce the Particle kinetic energy + the potential energy from the BH Mass-energy?
Why he had just claimed for the mass energy E=mc^2?
Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1. It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
Please be aware that the kinetic energy is:
E=M v^2 / 2
If the virtual/real particle is moving at the speed of light at the moment of creation, than its energy should be:
Ek = m c^2 / 2
While its potential energy is:
Ep = m G r
The event horizon radius is:
https://steemit.com/space/@getonthetrain/can-light-orbit-a-black-hole
Rh = 2 M G / c^2
While the photon sphere radius is
Rf = 3/2 Rh = 3 M G / c^2
As the new created particle is ejected into the photon sphere, than its potential energy should be:
Ep = m G Rf = m G 3 M G / c^2 = 3 M m G^2 /c^2
Hence, the total kinetic + potential energy is:
Et = Ek + Ep = m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
I hope that I don't have an error in this calculation.
So, we clearly see that that Et is quite high energy
Therefore, how could it be that Hawking had totally neglected that kind of total energy?
If you have an article that indicates the source for that Et, than would you kindly introduce that article?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2020 16:58:51
Your message directly contradicts with Hawking explanation as he claims that "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".It's a pity that he's no longer here to clarify it.
What causes the radiation is the field gradient.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/07/2020 17:24:35
Your message directly contradicts with Hawking explanation as he claims that "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".
And the black hole's gravitational field is made weaker after the particle is emitted because the black hole's mass decreases.
Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1. It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
They aren't incorrect. You, however, are incorrect if you claim that this process increases the total amount of mass/energy in the Universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2020 20:05:30
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:59:05They aren't incorrect.
Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1. It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
So, you agree with this message by Hawking.
Therefore, I hope that you also understand that the meaning for that is that the "virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles" and therefore, the velocity of the "particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
Hence, Et (total energy) which equal to Ek +Ep of the new created particle is given by the "black hole's gravitational energy".
You, however, are incorrect if you claim that this process increases the total amount of mass/energy in the Universe.I clearly claim that based on Hawking confirmation, the new created particle gets its Et from the gravity energy. However, as gravity force/energy is for free, than also this Et is for free!!!
And the black hole's gravitational field is made weaker after the particle is emitted because the black hole's mass decreases.I fully agree with Hawking that the BH is losing energy due to the creation of new particle.
Therefore, As the mass-energy in the ejected particle is E=mc^2, than the BH is losing exactly E=mc^2.
No more, no less.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2020 20:19:19
velocity of the "particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"No
Quite the reverse. The particles were slowed down by the BH's gravity.
I clearly claim that based on Hawking confirmation, the new created particle gets its Et from the gravity energy and it is for free!!!But it doesn't.
It gets its velocity- if it's a photon, from the fact that photons can't have any other velocity. The photon will have lost energy (and become red-shifted) as it travels away from the BH.
If it's a particle with rest mass (which is a lot more rare) then , as I said, it started off with a velocity "borrowed" from quantum fluctuations of space near the EH of the BH.
And then the BH robbed it of most of that velocity as the particle left the area,.
That's all I need. No more, no less.But it's the opposite of what you have actually got.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 19/07/2020 20:27:53
Exactly. This is why black holes can't create mass/energy. All of the mass of the particles that it emits causes its mass to decrease by the exact same amount. This is the opposite of what your model claims.
Your message directly contradicts with Hawking explanation as he claims that "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".
So, based on hawking, BH's gravity is the ultimate source for the velocity of the new created particle.
Why Hawking didn't reduce the Particle kinetic energy + the potential energy from the BH Mass-energy?
Why he had just claimed for the mass energy E=mc^2?
Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1. It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
Please be aware that the kinetic energy is:
E=M v^2 / 2
If the virtual/real particle is moving at the speed of light at the moment of creation, than its energy should be:
Ek = m c^2 / 2
While its potential energy is:
Ep = m G r
The event horizon radius is:
https://steemit.com/space/@getonthetrain/can-light-orbit-a-black-hole
Rh = 2 M G / c^2
While the photon sphere radius is
Rf = 3/2 Rh = 3 M G / c^2
As the new created particle is ejected into the photon sphere, than its potential energy should be:
Ep = m G Rf = m G 3 M G / c^2 = 3 M m G^2 /c^2
Hence, the total kinetic + potential energy is:
Et = Ek + Ep = m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
I hope that I don't have an error in this calculation.
So, we clearly see that that Et is quite high energy
Therefore, how could it be that Hawking had totally neglected that kind of total energy?
If you have an article that indicates the source for that Et, than would you kindly introduce that article?
The virtual particles that fill space is not what Hawking was talking about either. He was talking about positive and negative solutions to a wave equation in the context of incoming particles as a black hole is being formed. The simultaneous reality of the positive and negative wave solutions is supposedly due to the coordinate system being shifted by the strong gravitational field being formed. Basically, the energy level associated with the vacuum is changed, allowing mathematical games to be played with positive and negative energy levels. For an already formed black hole, virtual particle pairs are substituted into the description to make it more understandable.
Personally, I have a problem with the coordinate system being shifted as a cause of simultaneous reality of positive and negative wave solutions. Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism have positive and negative wave solutions. Retarded waves, as they are called, are the familiar positive energy electromagnetic waves of radio broadcasts etc. But no one has ever noticed negative energy (advanced) waves coming in from the universe and hitting the broadcast tower at the moment of transmission. It seems that our spacetime does not allow negative energy. If that is indeed the case, then the Hawking radiation process is in trouble.
Also keep in mind that the measured speed and therefore measured energy level (proportional to frequency) of electromagnetic waves is always constant regardless of frame of reference. If the locally effective energy level of the vacuum were changed, it should not be noticeable locally. Negative waveforms should not be detectable, that is, have any real consequences.
In the conventional popular explanation, it is virtual particle pairs that are discussed, one partner having positive energy and one having negative energy. No net energy change. The original formulation of an incoming particle having simultaneous positive and negative frequency solutions to its wave expression is also conservation friendly.
Concerning the kinetic and potential energy calculation:
If I am reading this right, you are keeping all the kinetic energy on the way up the gravitational well but still adding potential energy. Not legal. One feeds the other at its own expense.
If the ejected particle is not a photon, that is, if it has non-zero mass, then it will experience deceleration on the way up and lose kinetic energy in exact proportion to its gain in potential energy. (I am ignoring intervening variables like friction that might rob energy.) The gain in potential energy, which is the loss of kinetic energy, matches the loss of (negative) gravitational field energy. Positive kinetic energy and negative gravitational field energy both move closer to zero. To understand that a little better, by moving mass away from the black hole, mass density has been reduced and the gravitational force is less than it was.
If the velocity of the particle dropped to zero, it would fall back and trade its potential energy for kinetic energy. Mass density would increase and gravitational force would increase. The increased kinetic energy would be balanced by a gain (away from zero) in negative energy in the gravitational field.
If the ejected particle is a photon, it will be red shifted on the way up the gravitational well. Lower frequency means less energy. This energy loss matches the (negative) energy loss in the gravitational field. If the photon were reflected back by a lossless mirror, it would gain frequency and energy on the way down. These are the exact analogs of kinetic energy and potential energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2020 20:55:09
It seems that our spacetime does not allow negative energy. If that is indeed the case, then the Hawking radiation process is in trouble.Yes, I fully agree with you.
I will explain it later on.
However, concerning the kinetic and potential energy:
If I am reading this right, you are keeping all the kinetic energy on the way up the gravitational well but still adding potential energy. Not legal. One feeds the other at its own expense.Well, why do you claim for: " kinetic energy on the way up"
I ONLY focus on the Ek and Et at the single moment of creation.
So, let's assume that the virtual particle had been converted to real particle at radius r.
Hence, before it starts its "way up" activity, do you confirm that its Ek + Ep was given by the gravity force energy as stated by Hawking?
It gets its velocity- if it's a photon,Did you had a chance to read the following article about Hawking radiation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
If you do so, you would find the following message:
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)."
Do you agree that hawking specifically claims for ejected particle with mass energy of E=mc^2?
Do you consider it as a mass less photon or particle with real positive mass energy?
So, how can you claim for photon while Hawking is specifically discussing about a particle with positive mass energy?
NoPlease remember, we discuss on its Et at the moment of creation.
Quite the reverse. The particles were slowed down by the BH's gravity.
But it's the opposite of what you have actually got.So would you kindly prove your understanding by the attached Hawking article?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2020 20:59:45
What is your source for that?Do you understand how gravity works?
Is it real or just a personal wishful thinking?
So would you kindly prove your understanding by the attached Hawking article?This isn't anything special about Hawking radiation.
If you throw a ball into the sky, it slows down due to the Earth's gravity.
If you throw a particle away from (near) a black hole, it slows down as it leaves.
You seem to think that these particles get some sort of "slingshot" effect or something.
That's not happening.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2020 21:05:56
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)."Yes. That's the bit that says you are wrong.
Overall, the mass/ energy is conserved.
The BH loses a little mass an that is converted to the energy of a photon- which then escapes or the mass is converted to a particle which leaves.
But the sum of the energy/ mass remains the same.
Do you agree that hawking specifically claims for ejected particle with mass energy of E=mc^2?It's complicated; the particle leaves with energy- it's moving.
And so the total mass is the rest mass plus the relativistic mass.
And that sum is what teh BH loses.
Do you consider it as a mass less photon or particle with real positive mass energy?It's a photon, the same as the ones coming from your computer screen.
So, how can you claim for photon while Hawking is specifically discussing about a particle with positive mass energy?A photon is a particle with (relativistic) mass.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/07/2020 23:14:59
Therefore, As the mass-energy in the ejected particle is E=mc^2, than the BH is losing exactly E=mc^2.
No more, no less.
It sounds like you are contradicting yourself. Here you seem to agree that black holes do not add any net mass/energy to the Universe over time (which is the correct viewpoint), but here...
However, as gravity force/energy is for free, than also this Et is for free!!!
...you seem to be claiming that black holes do increase the total mass/energy of Universe over time (which is the wrong viewpoint).
So which is it?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 20/07/2020 00:14:34
It seems that our spacetime does not allow negative energy. If that is indeed the case, then the Hawking radiation process is in trouble.Yes, I fully agree with you.
I will explain it later on.
However, concerning the kinetic and potential energy:If I am reading this right, you are keeping all the kinetic energy on the way up the gravitational well but still adding potential energy. Not legal. One feeds the other at its own expense.Well, why do you claim for: " kinetic energy on the way up"
I ONLY focus on the Ek and Et at the single moment of creation.
So, let's assume that the virtual particle had been converted to real particle at radius r.
Hence, before it starts its "way up" activity, do you confirm that its Ek + Ep was given by the gravity force energy as stated by Hawking?
You specifically have the particle ejected from near the event horizon where it is created into the lowest photon orbital level which is well above the event horizon by half the radius equivalent of the black hole. This is no longer the moment of creation. Kinetic energy is lost on the way up, while potential energy is increased.
Keep in mind that kinetic energy and potential energy are relative to the frame of reference. Throw a stone at someone and it hurts when it hits. Kinetic energy is expressed. But if you happen to be on a train going exactly as fast as the stone is thrown and you miss the target and the stone goes out the back door. What happens? It drops to the ground in a straight line as seen from an observer on the ground and the only energy expressed is from the fall. What happened to the kinetic energy? Likewise, potential energy is only meaningful if you specify how far the object will drop before it hits something. If it never hits something the potential is unrealized and there is no kinetic energy expressed.
A particle coming from the close neighborhood of an event horizon does not have a definable kinetic energy unless you say what it is going to hit. It would only have definable potential energy if it were to drop and hit something. It is legitimate to talk about changes in kinetic energy and potential energy as a particle goes up or down in a gravitational field. But you cannot assign a specific value unless you provide a frame of reference.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/07/2020 04:11:02
You specifically have the particle ejected from near the event horizon where it is created...Please stop at this moment.
You claim - "You specifically have the particle ejected from near the event horizon where it is created"
So, we have a new created particle near the event horizon.
Please, before you think about its wish to move upwards to the lowest photon orbital level:
into the lowest photon orbital levelThis particle was boosted by the gravity energy in order to becoming real particle as stated by Hawking:
"being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
So, it gets its starting orbital velocity (V0 at T=0, moment of becoming real particle) by gravity force/energy.
Why is it so difficult to all of you to understand this clear explanation by Hawking?
No, I don'tQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:05:30It sounds like you are contradicting yourself. Here you seem to agree that black holes do not add any net mass/energy to the Universe over time (which is the correct viewpoint), but here...
Therefore, As the mass-energy in the ejected particle is E=mc^2, than the BH is losing exactly E=mc^2.
No more, no less.
I claim that due to the conservation of energy, the mass-energy (E=mc^2) in the new created particle MUST come from the energy of the BH itself.
However - that is the only energy that is taken from the BH for the created new particle as based on Hawking, the velocity V0 (or boosted particle) and the radius of that new created particale at the moment of creation is clearly contributed by the gravity force/energy.
This is not based on my imagination. It is clearly based on Hawking explanation.
In the following message:
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)."
Hawking tells us that it is Particle (not photon). If he wanted to discuss about a photon, he could claim for photon.
This particle has a mass = m
Therefore, he specifically claims for the mass-energy in that new created particle mass (m)
Therefore, he also give us the formula for the mass-energy in that particle which is equal to Em=mc^2.
Hence, Hawking tells us the the energy that the BH is losing (let's call it E(BH energy lost) is equal to mc^2.
Therefore, there is no any request from the BH to "pay" extra energy for the velocity and location at the moment of creation.
On the contrary.
It is specifically claim that its velocity (or boosted) is due to gravity force/energy.
You have already confirmed that message by Hawking:
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:59:05They aren't incorrect.
Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1. It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
However, some how you claim that the velocity due to that boosted activity (or actually its Kinetic energy at the moment of creation) which is based on V0 (Velocity at the moment of creation, T=0) and its potential energy Ep0 must also come from the BH energy itself
So, even as Hawking had stated that:
E (BH Energy Lost) = Em = mc^2
You claim that:
E (BH energy lost) = Em + Ek + Ep = Em + m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
All of that fully contradicts the explanation by Hawking.
However, you insist to ignore the real meaning of "gravity energy" and the meaning of "being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles", while you clearly accept the explanation of hawking that:
It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles" and "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
In the same token, as you also claim that:
E (BH energy lost) = Em + Ek + Ep = Em + m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
While hawking tells us that
E (BH energy lost) = Em
Don't you see your clear contradiction with Hawking message/explanation?
So, what can I say?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/07/2020 06:33:51
Hawking tells us that it is Particle (not photon). If he wanted to discuss about a photon, he could claim for photon.
You know that photons are a kind of particle, don't you?
In the same token, as you also claim that:
E (BH energy lost) = Em + Ek + Ep = Em + m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
This is the only way to satisfy conservation of energy. The total mass/energy in the Universe after the emission of the particle must be identical to the total mass/energy in the Universe before the emission of the particle. Anything else violates conservation of energy.
For the sake of argument, let's say the entire Universe had 10 GeV of mass/energy in it. If that number ever changed, then conservation of mass/energy would be violated. If it became 11 GeV, then conservation would be violated. If it became 9 GeV, conservation would be violated. Any number at all other than 10 GeV means violation.
While hawking tells us that
E (BH energy lost) = Em
Hawking never said that the emitted particles have more mass/energy than the black hole lost. If he did, then he would be claiming a violation of conservation of energy and would never have been taken seriously. But that's not what he claimed so that's not a problem.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/07/2020 08:49:13
This particle was boosted by the gravity energy in order to becoming real particle as stated by Hawking:I see.
"being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
So, it gets its starting orbital velocity (V0 at T=0, moment of becoming real particle) by gravity force/energy.
Why is it so difficult to all of you to understand this clear explanation by Hawking?
The problem is that you have misunderstood what he meant by "boosted".
In this case it doesn't mean a change in velocity (or energy) but a change in status.
It is boosted from being virtual to being real.
Why is it so difficult to all of you to understand this clear explanation by Hawking?I don't know.
Perhaps you can tell us why you didn't understand it?
My guess would be that English isn't your first language and you missed that meaning.
This is not based on my imagination. It is clearly based on Hawking explanation.It seems to be based on what you imagined Hawking meant.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 20/07/2020 18:00:48
You specifically have the particle ejected from near the event horizon where it is created...Please stop at this moment.
You claim - "You specifically have the particle ejected from near the event horizon where it is created"
So, we have a new created particle near the event horizon.
Please, before you think about its wish to move upwards to the lowest photon orbital level:
Earlier you said:
The event horizon radius is:
https://steemit.com/space/@getonthetrain/can-light-orbit-a-black-hole
Rh = 2 M G / c^2
While the photon sphere radius is
Rf = 3/2 Rh = 3 M G / c^2
As the new created particle is ejected into the photon sphere, than its potential energy should be:
Ep = m G Rf = m G 3 M G / c^2 = 3 M m G^2 /c^2
You have the particle going from near the event horizon to the photon sphere. If the particle is not moving, you cannot speak of its kinetic energy. If it does not change its level in the gravitational gradient, you cannot speak of its potential energy. This is what I was addressing.
Aside: While we are at it, it should be noted that only a Schwarzschild (non-rotating) black hole can have a photon sphere, in which a photon can have a circular orbit with any orientation. Real black holes would almost certainly be Kerr (rotating) black holes, since angular momentum of the components would never exactly cancel out and the spin would be amplified as the collapse took place. In a Kerr black hole, there are only 8 possible orbital paths of which only 2 are circular.
Not that any of that matters. Just being persnickety. What matters is that the particle moves upward away from the event horizon. More on that below.
into the lowest photon orbital levelThis particle was boosted by the gravity energy in order to becoming real particle as stated by Hawking:
"being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
So, it gets its starting orbital velocity (V0 at T=0, moment of becoming real particle) by gravity force/energy.
Why is it so difficult to all of you to understand this clear explanation by Hawking?
Hawking does not use the term ‘boosted’. That term in the Hawking Radiation Wiki article has no supporting citation. However it is clear that the ‘boosting’ refers to gaining real energy and becoming real and not to motion.
Hawking’s arguments are much denser and complex and not at all clear. These arguments involve spacetime curvatures in the neighborhood of the Planck length, such as could happen near the event horizon.
The virtual particle pairs that appear in the region of the event horizon can be split by the negative energy particle tunneling through the event horizon because it is within easy indeterminacy reach. The mechanism involves Killing vectors (named after someone named Killing) on the 4D spacetime manifold. The Killing vector is the effective direction of time at any given point on the manifold. At the event horizon spacetime has been turned around so much that Killing vector is spacelike instead of timelike. Going forward in time is the same as going down. There is no turning back. The way back is in the past.
The upshot is that the negative energy entering the black hole via tunneling allows the positive virtual particle to become real. But this seems to amount to just bookkeeping, a way of accounting for the entropy that Bekenstein predicted. There is no real explanation of how the energy transfer takes place.
Some comments on the reply to Kryptid.
E = mc^2 relates the rest mass of a particle to its energy content. The particle could be motionless and E = mc^2 is still true. Photons has no rest mass but they still have energy in proportion to the frequency. BTW Hawking originally stated that the primary form of black hole radiation would be massless photons and neutrinos. (In the mid-1970s it was not yet realized that neutrinos have mass.) Having an infinite Compton wavelength, like a photon, would make tunneling easier.
However, any sort of particles might be generated by this process, including ones with mass. Hawking uses the term ‘emission to infinity’, implying that these particles climb out of the gravity well and escape to safer grounds. Why should they always be in motion and going upward at that? Photons travel at light speed and can always escape as long as they are outside the event horizon and heading the right way. But why should particles with mass necessarily escape? Even if they go the right direction, why should they have enough velocity to always get away? They were created very near the event horizon, and the escape velocity they would have to overcome would then be close to light speed. Anything with a lower speed and/or not exactly the right direction is going to fall toward the black hole. And why would the particle with mass move upward?
How then can ‘emission to infinity’ be justified? The Hawking process has the negative energy particle tunneling through the event horizon. Is this in any way comparable to falling into the black hole and gaining kinetic energy in exchange for potential energy? Remember that this is the negative energy particle, so its kinetic energy would be negative. Is there some mechanism whereby this energy could be balanced by the positive energy particle gaining positive kinetic energy and moving away from the event horizon? We are now in extreme speculation land. Hawking himself does not address this in any meaningful way.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 20/07/2020 22:27:00
Vaidya black hole.
Aside: While we are at it, it should be noted that only a Schwarzschild (non-rotating) black hole can have a photon sphere, in which a photon can have a circular orbit with any orientation. Real black holes would almost certainly be Kerr (rotating) black holes, since angular momentum of the components would never exactly cancel out and the spin would be amplified as the collapse took place. In a Kerr black hole, there are only 8 possible orbital paths of which only 2 are circular.While we're being persnickety then, we're also talking about a Vaidya black hole. The Schwarzschild solution is a non-rotating static (without time evolution) solution, and a Kerr black hole is a rotating solution. The Vaidya solution is a dynamic solution (possibly non-rotating) that involves evaporation, and evaporation is the key feature on which Dave is hoping to pin his free-energy hopes. Not sure if Vaidya includes rotation or if there is another solution that includes both.
Not that any of that matters. Just being persnickety.
The formalism of the Schwarzschild solution introduces singularities (division by zero) at the event horizon. The Vaidya solution avoids this by using a different coordinate system so that the problem does not arise. There are other choices of coordinate systems than the rather exotic and hard to understand Eddington-Finkelstein version Vaidya used. But Thorne et al. used it in Gravitation, which is a very heavy book in more ways than one. It is also black. :) (1)
The interesting thing about the Vaidya metric is that the event horizon itself becomes describable and interesting properties emerge. There are rotating Kerr type solutions as well.
An absorbing Vaidya black hole is really no different from a conventional black hole. If I understand correctly, and I am not sure about that, a Vaidya blackhole in our universe with all sorts of stuff around to fall in (including the CMB), would typically absorb more than emit. In a large empty region of space, emission would presumably exceed absorption at least in lower mass entities.
The output of an emitting Vaidya black hole is called ‘null dust’ which is massless something or other. Photons or gravitons would work but EM radiation does not. Neither does anything with mass. What might be left after a Vaidya black hole evaporates? A naked singularity? A wormhole?
We need quantum gravity.
(1) It was reading a passage in Gravitation about the relativistic interval, the invariant spacetime distance between two events regardless of observer states, not having a physical interpretation that set me on the road to questioning some aspects of textbook physics.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/07/2020 03:31:24
But why should particles with mass necessarily escape? Even if they go the right direction, why should they have enough velocity to always get away? They were created very near the event horizon, and the escape velocity they would have to overcome would then be close to light speed. Anything with a lower speed and/or not exactly the right direction is going to fall toward the black hole. And why would the particle with mass move upward?Thanks for your great explanation.
So, in order for a new created particle (with real mass) to escape from near the event horizon, it must run for its life.
In other words, any new created particle pair must come with an orbital velocity which is almost as high as the speed of light.
If the orbital velocity will be too low, this pair will immediately fall down into the BH.
So, if the new created particles pair (positive and negative) are too lazy, and orbit at too low velocity, both of them must fall in and nothing could escape from the mighty BH gravity force.
Therefore, it is clear that at the moment of creation, the two positive and negative particles MUST be located near each other and Must also orbit at Ultra high velocity.
That activity must take place before one is move outwards and the other one moves inwards.
You have the particle going from near the event horizon to the photon sphere. If the particle is not moving, you cannot speak of its kinetic energy. If it does not change its level in the gravitational gradient, you cannot speak of its potential energy. This is what I was addressing.So, I claim that a new created particles pair without a velocity must fall in (both). Therefore, there is no meaning to discuss about new created particles without velocity.
Hence, at the same moment of creation, they must orbit at the same ultra velocity. Just after that one of them can move upwards, while the other one can move downwards.
Therefore, at the moment of creation they MUST have velocity even before one of them is moving outwards!!!
So let me assume for one moment that your assumption is correct.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:11:02
In the same token, as you also claim that:
E (BH energy lost) = Em + Ek + Ep = Em + m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
This is the only way to satisfy conservation of energy. The total mass/energy in the Universe after the emission of the particle must be identical to the total mass/energy in the Universe before the emission of the particle. Anything else violates conservation of energy.
The negative particle has the following total energy:
E = Em + Ek + Ep = Em + m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
However, how the BH is going to PAY for this extra Kinetic and potential energies?
Hawking only asked to pay by the negative mass which is Em = mc^2 as evaporation of mass from the BH.
So, are you sure that as the negative particle falls in with ultra high velocity, that velocity should increase the mass evaporation from the BH?
So let's assume that the negative particle is located at radius R1 and has a velocity of V1 during the moment of creation.
So, this particle must fall in. Let's assume that it hit the BH mass at R2 while its velocity is V2.
How the kinetic energy on the impact moment (due to V2) could be transformed into evaporation of more mass from the BH?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/07/2020 04:36:22
However, how the BH is going to PAY for this extra Kinetic and potential energies?
There is nothing to pay because the particle has a negative mass/energy equal in magnitude to the positive mass/energy of the particle that escapes. If the particle that escapes has a mass/energy of 10 MeV, then the infalling particle will have a mass/energy of -10 MeV. 10 plus -10 equals zero.
If the black hole has a mass/energy of, say, 1,000 MeV, then that negative energy particle will reduce the black hole's mass/energy to 990 MeV, because 1,000 MeV + (-10 MeV) = 990 MeV.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/07/2020 16:21:26
There is nothing to pay because the particle has a negative mass/energy equal in magnitude to the positive mass/energy of the particle that escapes. If the particle that escapes has a mass/energy of 10 MeV, then the infalling particle will have a mass/energy of -10 MeV. 10 plus -10 equals zero.
Well, the total energy of the escape particle is:
Ee (Total Escape energy) = Em + Et = Em + Ek + Ep = 10 MeV
Now, just for the calculation, let's assume that:
Em = mc^2 =6 Mev
While
Et = 10Mev - Em = 10Mev - 6Mev = 4Mev
As you have explained due to the energy conservation, the antiparticle must have a negative identical energy
Therefore, based on this assumption,
Ef (total falling particle energy) = - Ee (Total Escape energy) = - Em - Et = 10 MeV
Hence, the negative mass energy for the falling particle is,
Emf = -Em = - mc^2 = - 6mev
While, the energy due to the velocity of the falling particale is
Etf = -Et = -4Mev.
So, the negative mass of the falling energy must decrease the total mass of the BH by 6Mev
However, how the BH is going to lose any sort of mass due to the negative Etf energy (kinetic + potential)?
If the black hole has a mass/energy of, say, 1,000 MeV, then that negative energy particle will reduce the black hole's mass/energy to 990 MeV, because 1,000 MeV + (-10 MeV) = 990 MeV.
Sorry, that calculation is incorrect:
I can accept the idea that the negative mass by itself should decrease the total mass of the BH.
Therefore,
1,000 MeV + (-6 MeV) = 994 MeV
However, how the total kinetic + potential energy of the falling particle which is -4Mev can reduce any sort of mass from the BH.
Can you show any formula that a velocity of falling negative particle could decrease a mass from the main object?
Hawking does not claim for it.
As I think about it, it seems to me that a falling in particle (or even antiparticle) must have a positive kinetic energy as it falls at high velocity.
Therefore,, the falling antiparticle should increase the black hole's temperature due to the collision with the BH at ultra high velocity.
Surprisingly, I have found that hawking fully agrees with me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Unlike most objects, a black hole's temperature increases as it radiates away mass."
Actually, that message by Hawking shows that the system/BH gets extra energy due to the mass creation process. That by itself is a key contradiction with the conservation law.
In any case, even if you claim that this heat is negative (which is absolutely none realistic) at the most you can claim that this negative heat/energy decreases the black hole's temperature.
Therefore why are you so sure that the falling antiparticle must decrease extra mass from the BH just due to its falling in velocity?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/07/2020 20:55:58
Sorry, that calculation is incorrect:
Then get a calculator, because 1,000 - 10 is, indeed, 990.
As I think about it, it seems to me that a falling in particle (or even antiparticle) must have a positive kinetic energy as it falls at high velocity.
The kinetic energy equation is Ek = 0.5mv2, so if the mass (m) is negative, then the kinetic energy (Ek) must also be negative.
However, how the total kinetic + potential energy of the falling particle which is -4Mev can reduce any sort of mass from the BH.
It's called arithmetic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/07/2020 21:02:58
"Unlike most objects, a black hole's temperature increases as it radiates away mass."No, it doesn't.
Actually, that message by Hawking shows that the system/BH gets extra energy due to the mass creation process. That by itself is a key contradiction with the conservation law.
The BH ends up hotter, but smaller.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 22/07/2020 03:08:21
But why should particles with mass necessarily escape? Even if they go the right direction, why should they have enough velocity to always get away? They were created very near the event horizon, and the escape velocity they would have to overcome would then be close to light speed. Anything with a lower speed and/or not exactly the right direction is going to fall toward the black hole. And why would the particle with mass move upward?Thanks for your great explanation.
So, in order for a new created particle (with real mass) to escape from near the event horizon, it must run for its life.
In other words, any new created particle pair must come with an orbital velocity which is almost as high as the speed of light.
If the orbital velocity will be too low, this pair will immediately fall down into the BH.
So, if the new created particles pair (positive and negative) are too lazy, and orbit at too low velocity, both of them must fall in and nothing could escape from the mighty BH gravity force.
Therefore, it is clear that at the moment of creation, the two positive and negative particles MUST be located near each other and Must also orbit at Ultra high velocity.
That activity must take place before one is move outwards and the other one moves inwards.
Not orbital speed, but vertical speed. Orbits are not possible near the event horizon. It is too deep in the gravity well. Anyway, going round and round would not match Hawking’s ‘emission to infinity’.
But yes, the vertical speed would need to be almost light speed. A photon could do that, necessarily traveling at light speed. That would mean that the matching negative energy photon would go straight down. Since in Hawking’s model, the photon or whatever is tunneling through the event horizon, where the only possible direction is down, that is not an unreasonable thought. This would presumably apply to particles with mass as well, although I am not yet clear in my mind how the speed, i.e., kinetic energy, issue could be resolved.
Again, it is not just the bookkeeping aspect I am interested in, but the detailed mechanism.
You have the particle going from near the event horizon to the photon sphere. If the particle is not moving, you cannot speak of its kinetic energy. If it does not change its level in the gravitational gradient, you cannot speak of its potential energy. This is what I was addressing.So, I claim that a new created particles pair without a velocity must fall in (both). Therefore, there is no meaning to discuss about new created particles without velocity.
Hence, at the same moment of creation, they must orbit at the same ultra velocity. Just after that one of them can move upwards, while the other one can move downwards.
Therefore, at the moment of creation they MUST have velocity even before one of them is moving outwards!!![/quote]
Not necessarily have the correct velocity (speed and direction). The negative virtual particle is crossing the event horizon where down is the only direction. That would take care of the direction aspect. Since the gravitational gradient is so steep near the event horizon, even when one is near the event horizon, it is still a long way down in terms of kinetic energy gain. Perhaps a negative mass-energy particle could pick up enough negative kinetic energy falling down to account for enough positive kinetic energy in the positive mass energy particle to get it clear of the black hole neighborhood and so ‘emit to infinity’ as Hawking wants.
But again what is the mechanism involved that could move this energy around?
Just demonstrating that the energy balance sheets would come out right would take more math than I ever want to do again in my life. This is about as non-linear as GR gets. And there is quantum tunneling in the mix. I think I will just stick with armchair pipe dreaming. :)
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/07/2020 05:32:25
The kinetic energy equation is Ek = 0.5mv2, so if the mass (m) is negative, then the kinetic energy (Ek) must also be negative.That is correct
However, how negative kinetic energy could evaporate any sort of mass from the BH?
The BH ends up hotter, but smaller.Even if we assume that all the kinetic and potential energies of the negative particle are used to evaporate extra mass from the BH, how that BH ends up hotter? If it get hotter, than new energy is coming in. Don't you agree that this activity contradicts the conservation law.
Not orbital speed, but vertical speed. Orbits are not possible near the event horizon. It is too deep in the gravity well. Anyway, going round and round would not match Hawking’s ‘emission to infinity’.Are you sure about it?
Vertical velocity is like a rocket moving upwards.
But yes, the vertical speed would need to be almost light speed. A photon could do that, necessarily traveling at light speed.If a photon is boosted vertically upwards like a rocket from the event horizon at the speed of light c, it's energy would be so high that with all the good willing, it must be kicked out from the gravity impact of the BH.
Therefore, it won't be able to set even one orbital cycle around the BH.
However, we know that around a BH there is a photon sphere. In this sphere, photons orbit around the BH. In order to get there, they must orbit around the BH at the moment of their creation.
Therefore, this theory of vertical velocity is not applicable.
However, why do you highlight a photon?
We focus on a particle with real mass.
Do you see a possibility for vertical c velocity also with real mass particle?
The negative virtual particle is crossing the event horizon where down is the only direction. That would take care of the direction aspect. Since the gravitational gradient is so steep near the event horizon, even when one is near the event horizon, it is still a long way down in terms of kinetic energy gain. Perhaps a negative mass-energy particle could pick up enough negative kinetic energy falling down to account for enough positive kinetic energy in the positive mass energy particle to get it clear of the black hole neighborhood and so ‘emit to infinity’ as Hawking wants.
Why are you so sure that ONLY and ALWAYS the negative mass will fall in and the other one will be ejected outwards?
But again what is the mechanism involved that could move this energy around?What kind of mechanism would prevent from the negative mass to be ejected outwards, while the positive mass to fall inwards.
Please remember, based on Hawking, first we get the two particles (negative and positive) and then the BH pays after the negative particle falls in.
So, could it be that the process works as follow:
The BH asks a permission from the conservation law to create two particles without any investment of extra energy.
The BH promise to the conservation law that after the creation it will pay back by losing some of its mass.
Therefore, Two particles are created without any need for external energy. One negative and one positive.
However, after the creation, without a clear mechanism to force the negative to all in, the positive activity could take place as the positive will fall in and the negative will be ejected outwards.
In this case, the BH will gain mass, while the Universe will lose mass.
Do you agree that this is not realistic?
With regards to Negative mass
Are you sure that this idea is real? Our scientists have never found any sort of negative mass in our universe. Therefore, could it be that the idea of negative mass is a pure fiction?
Hawking claims that in order to keep the conservation law, Positive + Negative particles must be created almost out of nothing and without any investment of real energy.
He claims that there is no violation of conservation law as those two particles carry exactly the same opposite energies.
However, the real payment for this activity will take place later on when the negative particle will hit the BH.
It sounds to me as a loan from the Universe.
You go to the bank, get 1000$ in cash (real particale) and also a bill of -1000$ (negative particale). You use the money and pay later on your bill.
Another example - You are going in the desert. There is no water. So, you set an agreement with the nature to get real water and antiwater. You drink the water and keep the antiwater. Later on when you get to the lake you will return the bill. Is it real?
In the same token, the BH takes a loan from the Universe.
It creates real particle (postitive) and get a bill in form of Antiparticle (negative).
The payment will be set after the collision between the negative particle with the BH.
Are you sure that the universe would accept this kind of agreement?
Sorry, our Universe is not a banking system. If something is created in our Universe, the payment in energy must come in advance and in cash.
Nothing would be created without payment in real energy in ADVANCE!
So, don't you agree that new particles/photons could be created just after a transformation of real energy (in advance) from the BH to that creation process (whatever it is)?
Therefore, if you believe in BH mass evaporation process, than first the BH must evaporate some of its mass-energy and just then it can hope to get real particle/photon.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/07/2020 05:50:12
However, how negative kinetic energy could evaporate any sort of mass from the BH?
Because the negative mass necessarily gets absorbed by the black hole. Adding a negative number to a positive number makes the positive number smaller.
If it get hotter, than new energy is coming in.
No it isn't. All of that heat energy results in an equal amount of mass/energy being lost from the black hole. If the black hole radiates 10 MeV of heat energy, then it loses 10 MeV of mass.
Why are you so sure that ONLY and ALWAYS the negative mass will fall in and the other one will be ejected outwards?
The internal environment of the black hole is what allows that particle to have negative mass to begin with. Space-time is extremely distorted there.
Therefore, could it be that the idea of negative mass is a pure fiction?
If it is, then black holes can't produce Hawking radiation and thus cannot radiate particles. The existence of negative mass is required in order to keep the conservation of energy. The black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 22/07/2020 16:52:29
Even if we assume that all the kinetic and potential energies of the negative particle are used to evaporate extra mass from the BH, how that BH ends up hotter? If it get hotter, than new energy is coming in. Don't you agree that this activity contradicts the conservation law.
The magnitude of the Hawking radiation effect is related to the gravitational gradient, the change in gravitational strength in the vertical direction. The small the black hole, the steeper the gravitational gradient. Small black holes radiate faster, making them hotter. As a result they shrink faster. Energy is conserved.
Not orbital speed, but vertical speed. Orbits are not possible near the event horizon. It is too deep in the gravity well. Anyway, going round and round would not match Hawking’s ‘emission to infinity’.Are you sure about it?
Vertical velocity is like a rocket moving upwards.
Exactly. The particle is escaping from the region of the black hole, just like Hawking wants. ‘Emission to infinity’ is his phrase. Anyway, orbits are not possible near the event horizon. Even light, traveling at lightspeed, cannot maintain an orbit below half the radius above the horizon. The gravity well is too steep below that point.
But yes, the vertical speed would need to be almost light speed. A photon could do that, necessarily traveling at light speed.If a photon is boosted vertically upwards like a rocket from the event horizon at the speed of light c, it's energy would be so high that with all the good willing, it must be kicked out from the gravity impact of the BH.
Therefore, it won't be able to set even one orbital cycle around the BH.
However, we know that around a BH there is a photon sphere. In this sphere, photons orbit around the BH. In order to get there, they must orbit around the BH at the moment of their creation.
Therefore, this theory of vertical velocity is not applicable.
However, why do you highlight a photon?
We focus on a particle with real mass.
Do you see a possibility for vertical c velocity also with real mass particle?
A particle with mass need not travel at lightspeed to escape, just very very close to it. The positive mass particle starts just above the event horizon, not on it. The escape velocity is almost light speed but not quite.
And as before, orbits are not possible that low.
Hawking originally focused on massless photons because the already hairy math was easier that way and because massless photons would be the most common form of emission. He also mentioned neutrinos because at the time they were thought to be massless. The greater the mass of the real version of a virtual particle, the shorter its lifetime and range and therefore the less likely tunneling through the horizon would happen.
The negative virtual particle is crossing the event horizon where down is the only direction. That would take care of the direction aspect. Since the gravitational gradient is so steep near the event horizon, even when one is near the event horizon, it is still a long way down in terms of kinetic energy gain. Perhaps a negative mass-energy particle could pick up enough negative kinetic energy falling down to account for enough positive kinetic energy in the positive mass energy particle to get it clear of the black hole neighborhood and so ‘emit to infinity’ as Hawking wants.
Why are you so sure that ONLY and ALWAYS the negative mass will fall in and the other one will be ejected outwards?
I mentioned that earlier as a problem I had with the process. I do not see anything in the math that would mandate that, but it is very dense. One would think that a negative mass entity would go up in a strong gravitational field, making the positive mass partner be on the down side and more likely to be the one to tunnel through the event horizon. Virtual electron pairs do orient themselves in an electric field.
But again what is the mechanism involved that could move this energy around?What kind of mechanism would prevent from the negative mass to be ejected outwards, while the positive mass to fall inwards.
Please remember, based on Hawking, first we get the two particles (negative and positive) and then the BH pays after the negative particle falls in.
So, could it be that the process works as follow:
The BH asks a permission from the conservation law to create two particles without any investment of extra energy.
The BH promise to the conservation law that after the creation it will pay back by losing some of its mass.
Therefore, Two particles are created without any need for external energy. One negative and one positive.
However, after the creation, without a clear mechanism to force the negative to all in, the positive activity could take place as the positive will fall in and the negative will be ejected outwards.
In this case, the BH will gain mass, while the Universe will lose mass.
Do you agree that this is not realistic?
There is no such thing as borrowing energy from the conservation law. It is not a bank. Virtual particles pairs can exist because they are balanced in every way even to the point of opposite mass-energy values. They add up to zero.
With regards to Negative mass
Are you sure that this idea is real? Our scientists have never found any sort of negative mass in our universe. Therefore, could it be that the idea of negative mass is a pure fiction?
Virtual particle pairs have one positive mass-energy partner and one negative mass-energy partner. Virtual particles are not ‘on the mass shell’, that is, they do not strictly obey energy-momentum laws. The total of the mass-energy is zero but it is composed of a plus and a minus not in the same exact place. If the total mass was not zero but was positive, and since virtual particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing, there would be a continuous positive surplus of mass-energy that would overwhelm the universe.
Negative mass-energy exists in virtual particle pairs.
Hawking claims that in order to keep the conservation law, Positive + Negative particles must be created almost out of nothing and without any investment of real energy.
He claims that there is no violation of conservation law as those two particles carry exactly the same opposite energies.
However, the real payment for this activity will take place later on when the negative particle will hit the BH.
It sounds to me as a loan from the Universe.
You go to the bank, get 1000$ in cash (real particale) and also a bill of -1000$ (negative particale). You use the money and pay later on your bill.
Another example - You are going in the desert. There is no water. So, you set an agreement with the nature to get real water and antiwater. You drink the water and keep the antiwater. Later on when you get to the lake you will return the bill. Is it real?
In the same token, the BH takes a loan from the Universe.
It creates real particle (postitive) and get a bill in form of Antiparticle (negative).
The payment will be set after the collision between the negative particle with the BH.
Are you sure that the universe would accept this kind of agreement?
Sorry, our Universe is not a banking system. If something is created in our Universe, the payment in energy must come in advance and in cash.
Nothing would be created without payment in real energy in ADVANCE!
So, don't you agree that new particles/photons could be created just after a transformation of real energy (in advance) from the BH to that creation process (whatever it is)?
Therefore, if you believe in BH mass evaporation process, than first the BH must evaporate some of its mass-energy and just then it can hope to get real particle/photon.
I have also mentioned the time order issue earlier. I do not have an answer. If we ever get a viable quantum gravity theory, it might make sense. Especially if that involves a new concept of spacetime, which looks like it may very well be the case.
Again, my own solution to the whole ‘black holes eat entropy requiring black hole emission’ problem is that from the viewpoint of a distant observer, nothing ever reaches the event horizon because of the extreme time dilation. Everything that went in the direction of the black hole is still this side of it, entropy and all.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/07/2020 04:05:51
The internal environment of the black hole is what allows that particle to have negative mass to begin with. Space-time is extremely distorted there.
Virtual particles pairs can exist because they are balanced in every way even to the point of opposite mass-energy values. They add up to zero.Outside the surface of the BH it is all about gravity (At least based on Hawking concept).
So, how the internal environment of the black hole can generate at the event of horizon (high above its surface) a negative mass particle?
Virtual particles can't be considered as real particles.
So, does real Negative mass-energy particle exist in our Universe?
The idea that you need it for your theory does not necessarily convert it to reality.
If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.
Have you ever found any sort of negative mass (or its impact as negative gravity) around a BH or elsewhere?
The existence of negative mass is required in order to keep the conservation of energy. The black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself.If based on our modules it is there then why we have never ever found it?
Could it be that it is only exist in our wishful list?
How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?
As there is no Negative mass-energy particle in our universe, then don't you agree that this theory is none relevant?
Why are you so sure that a black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself?
Do you claim that there is only one theory for that radiation?
Sorry, if you need a negative mass for your theory, you must observe it.
If you can't observe it, then it's the time to change disc and look for better theory.
2. Perfect creation particles system
How do we know for sure that the total energy in the new created particles is absolutely zero?
If one particle is located even one micro of a Pico mm to the left with regards to the other one, than already its energy is different from the other particle.
In any real system, there is no perfect match. Even a very small difference of 10^1000 is still a difference.
So, how can you believe is such a perfect creation system?
3. Negative kinetic energy
You claim that the negative kinetic energy of the falling negative mass particle into the BH, can evaporate extra mass from the BH.
I can accept the idea that a negative mass particle can evaporate positive mass particle.
However, how its negative kinetic energy can evaporate any sort of mass?
Can you please prove it?
How could it be that a negative mass particle that is falling at velocity V can evaporate more mass than the same particle falling at a velocity V-v.?
Please be aware that the surface of the BH might not be so smooth.
Therefore, the same falling particle could collide with the surface of the BH at different H.
Hence, its velocity during the impact could be changed based on the location of the collision point.
Therefore, the same particle could collide with the surface of the BH at a different velocity (or kinetic energy).
This by itself sets a key violation in energy conservation - as you see it.
4. Gravity Energy
Hawking is specifically discuss on Gravity Energy. Not gravity force but gravity energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
If the gravity force is not energy than why he specifically highlights that the pair was produced by that gravitational energy?
So, why he is using the word energy instead of force for the key phase of pair production process?
Could it be that he knew that energy is needed to produce anything in our universe including new particle–antiparticle pair?
Therefore, why can't we understand that without investing energy, there will be no particle–antiparticle pair?
As he had no idea for the source of energy, he had selected the available gravity force as the source of the requested energy in that process.
If you claim that the gravity force has no energy, than how the universe could create this pair without investing energy?
5. Banking system Energy
Sorry, our Universe is not a banking system. If something is created in our Universe, the payment in energy must come in advance and in cash.
Nothing would be created without payment in real energy in ADVANCE!
So, don't you agree that new particles/photons could be created just after a transformation of real energy (in advance) from the BH to that creation process (whatever it is)?
Therefore, if you believe in BH mass evaporation process, than first the BH must evaporate some of its mass-energy and just then it can hope to get real particle/photon.
I have also mentioned the time order issue earlier. I do not have an answer. If we ever get a viable quantum gravity theory, it might make sense. Especially if that involves a new concept of spacetime, which looks like it may very well be the case.Thanks
So, you also see a problem in this creation process.
The question is very simple:
When do we have to pay for in energy for the creation of the pair?
If it is just after the creation of the pair, than this is clearly a banking energy system.
Sorry, nothing in our universe would be created without a payment in energy in advanced.
I assume that even hawking knew it. Therefore, he called it Gravity Energy:
Therefore, in any production system, you must invest energy before you get something - even if you think that its energy is zero.
So, do you agree that without first investment with real energy - nothing could be created?
6. Energy waste/efficiency
In any system, there is no zero waste.
The sun converts Hydrogen to helium by fusion process. In that process we get some of the extra energy waste as heat.
Even in our car the energy efficiency is less than 100%.
Therefore, in any creation/transformation of energies some of the energy must be converted to heat and waste.
Therefore, in order to create a particle and antiparticle (even if we claim that their total energy is zero) the BH must invest more energy than zero.
However, you introduce a theory with 100% efficiency.
So, don't you agree that the idea that a BH creates real particles with total zero, with investment of zero energy, at zero waste of energy should be zero.
How can we accept/believe in such hypothetical idea?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/07/2020 05:45:56
How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?
It's in the math. I don't understand that level of math myself, but those who do seem to have no problem accepting it as plausible. If there was an obvious error, Hawking would have been called out on it and it wouldn't have become anywhere near as widely-accepted as it has been.
Please don't call it "my" theory. It belongs to Hawking. It just happens to be a widely-accepted mechanism for black hole evaporation in the physics community by those who do understand the math behind it. Could it be wrong? Yes. No one has observed Hawking radiation around a real black hole. They are too far away for us to do that.
As there is no Negative mass-energy particle in our universe
Now you are making a claim that it doesn't exist. So you now you have to demonstrate that it doesn't. "We have never seen any" is not enough of an argument to show that it doesn't exist.
The sun converts Hydrogen to helium by fusion process. In that process we get some of the extra energy waste as heat.
Even in our car the energy efficiency is less than 100%.
Therefore, in any creation/transformation of energies some of the energy must be converted to heat and waste.
When you add up all of the different forms of energy after the reactions (including heat), it equals the amount of energy before the reactions. That is required by the first law of thermodynamics.
Therefore, in any creation/transformation of energies some of the energy must be converted to heat and waste.
Therefore, in order to create a particle and antiparticle (even if we claim that their total energy is zero) the BH must invest more energy than zero.
However, you introduce a theory with 100% efficiency.
Matter-antimatter annihilation is 100% efficient too, so we know that such a thing can exist. Too bad you didn't think of that beforehand.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2020 08:55:31
So, how the internal environment of the black hole can generate at the event of horizon (high above its surface) a negative mass particle?It doesn't need to.
Virtual particles pop in and out of existence anyway.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2020 08:58:41
If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.No.
I only need to find evidence for it.
If my mill grinds corn, I don't have to see the wind to know it's there.
A theory needs to explain things, and it needs to be internally consistent, and it needs not to contradict reality.
BBT ticks all those boxes; your idea does not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/07/2020 13:37:28
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:51It's in the math.
How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?
I have found that our scientists normally set several assumptions when they are using the Math.
Based on those assumptions/manipulations the sky is the limit.
Tell me what you need and the math is there for your support.
For example - Friedman had assumed that the Universe is isotopic and homogenous.
Based on Friedman Math our scientists could justify the BBT.
However, is it correct to assume that at any condition the Universe is homogenous and isotropic?
In the same token, the space time is based on Minkowski (1,0,0,0) assumption for 4D matrix.
It is clear that by this assumption Minkowski gave up on some math component in his calculation.
Those missing components might be very minor. However, small change at very long distance (close to the infinity) could set a sever change.
Therefore, Based on this Minkowski space-time assumption, our scientists get unrealistic curvature in our Universe.
So, the math by itself is always correct.
However, once you twist the starting point or add some assumptions (even minor assumptions) it could lead to fatal results.
Therefore, could it be that by using the correct assumptions, almost every goal is achievable?
Could it be that the math prove for the negative mass particle - is also based on minor changes/assumptions in the Math?.
Could it be that also the math evidences for dark energy or dark matter are also based on minor changes in the math?
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Our scientists must find the smoking gun.
If they claim for negative mass - they have to see it or at least to observe the impact due to this idea.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:51No.
If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.
I only need to find evidence for it.
If my mill grinds corn, I don't have to see the wind to know it's there.
Where is the evidence for the negative mass directly or indirectly?
Our scientists claim that due to Hawking radiation there must be a real negative mass particle.
Therefore, they claim that Hawking radiation by itself can be used as an evidence for that missing negative mass particle.
Is it real?
How can we consider that approach as real science?
If Hawking claims that there is a negative mass particle due to its theory, we must find it directly or indirectly.
Negative mass means negative gravity.
So, negative gravity should be use as an evidence for negative mass particle.
Do we see any negative gravity around the BH?
If we don't observe any negative gravity than how can we be sure that there is real negative mass in our Universe?
A theory needs to explain things, and it needs to be internally consistent, and it needs not to contradict reality.Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas.
BBT ticks all those boxes; your idea does not.
So, how can you claim that BBT ticks all the boxes?
Actually, you raise the Conservation energy flag as the most important issue in our discussion.
You even claim that the gravity force (that Hawking called - gravity energy) can't contribute any velocity to the new created particle.
So, somehow out of nothing and without any investment of energy you hope that the virtual particles pair will be converted to real particles with real velocities. All of that, without any sort of energy.
Is it real?
How can we believe in such a story?
You know for sure that there might be some minor changes in energy between the new created particles. Why do you ignore that possibility?
I wish I could generate negative and positive money out of nothing.
In any case, so far you didn't answer the most important question about the BBT:
What is the source of energy for all the matter in our observable Universe?
You can't just bypass that issue and claim that it isn't your problem.
Yes, it is our problem.
In the BBT, we don't discuss just on a kinetic energy for the new created particle.
We discuss on the total energy for the whole Universe.
As you hold high above the flag of energy conservation law for that tiny particle, where is this flag for the BBT energy conservation activity?
What is the source of energy for the whole observable universe including dark matter and dark energy?
How can you hide behind the answer - it is not our task to answer this question.
If it is not your task to show the source of energy for the whole Universe, why it is my task to show the source of energy for that orbital velocity of new born particle?
Sorry, if you give a waiver for yourself for the infinity energy that is needed for the BBT, than you could be little be more flexible with my request to get free of charge a velocity for the new created particle.
Please be aware, I don't ask to get the mass-energy of the particle for free.
I'm ready to pay for that by real energy.
I only ask that its kinetic energy would be considered as a direct outcome from the gravity energy
Why is it so big request from you while you took for free almost infinite energy for the moment of the Big Bang?.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/07/2020 17:22:04
Based on those assumptions/manipulations the sky is the limit.
Tell me what you need and the math is there for your support.
No it isn't. The math must obey the laws of physics. That's a very real limit.
However, is it correct to assume that at any condition the Universe is homogenous and isotropic?
According to observations, it appears to be.
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
In what way is Hawking's math "manipulated"?
But, as I said before, if particles can't have negative mass-energy under any circumstances, then black holes can't radiate particles and your model is therefore falsified.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2020 17:49:18
Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas.BBT doesn't need any of those things.
So, how can you claim that BBT ticks all the boxes?
Why tell that lie?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2020 23:33:42
BH.png (292.44 kB . 353x341 - viewed 3182 times)It turns out that bad jokes make more sense than D L's "theory"Post by: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01
1. Negative mass-energy particleThe internal environment of the black hole is what allows that particle to have negative mass to begin with. Space-time is extremely distorted there.Virtual particles pairs can exist because they are balanced in every way even to the point of opposite mass-energy values. They add up to zero.Outside the surface of the BH it is all about gravity (At least based on Hawking concept).
So, how the internal environment of the black hole can generate at the event of horizon (high above its surface) a negative mass particle?
Virtual particles can't be considered as real particles.
So, does real Negative mass-energy particle exist in our Universe?
The idea that you need it for your theory does not necessarily convert it to reality.
If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.
Have you ever found any sort of negative mass (or its impact as negative gravity) around a BH or elsewhere?
Real negative mass-energy particles do not exist in our universe. Virtual ones do, paired with positive mass-energy particles. The net sum is zero mass energy.
Virtual particles have real effects in the time they exist. One example is fine tuning electron energy levels a touch away from what is expected. Willis Lamb got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that one. Quite a few other things like that by now including the really exotic Casimir effect. There are those who like to say that in quantum field theory, virtual particles are just fluctuations in a field. What they do think real particles are in quantum field theory?
Hawking’s model involves what can happen in the extreme curvature near the event horizon. He concentrates on photons in his discussion. In an asymptotically flat space, not deep in a black hole, it is reasonable to deal only with positive frequencies, that is, photons as we know them.
However, in the extreme curvature of spacetime very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real. The math behind this is very heavy, Hermitian scalar field operators, co-variant wave functions and the like. I know these things as a bit more than just names and they are scary. The upshot is that Hawking says that very near the event horizon, where the radius of curvature is in the neighborhood of the Planck length, the vacuum energy state has changed enough that negative frequencies are allowed.
Recall that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A negative frequency translates to negative energy.
The existence of negative mass is required in order to keep the conservation of energy. The black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself.If based on our modules it is there then why we have never ever found it?
Could it be that it is only exist in our wishful list?
How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?
As there is no Negative mass-energy particle in our universe, then don't you agree that this theory is none relevant?
Why are you so sure that a black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself?
Do you claim that there is only one theory for that radiation?
Sorry, if you need a negative mass for your theory, you must observe it.
If you can't observe it, then it's the time to change disc and look for better theory.
In the late 19th century Ernst Mach, a brilliant physicist but also a follower of extreme Logical Positivism, demanded that no one be allowed to talk about atoms because they could never be observed. Niels Bohr, another Logical Positivist, claimed that whatever is not being observed by a human does not exist. Schrödinger came up with his famous cat thought experiment to point out the problems with that idea.
Virtual particles cannot in principle be observed. Yet virtual particle theory works very well including both force exchange models and explanations for some unusual phenomena. The virtual particle model assumes negative mass-energy. (Quarks also cannot in principle be observed, yet that theory has enormous explanatory and confirmed predictive power.)
It is not necessary to exhibit an entity if the assumption of its existence works so very well.
2. Perfect creation particles system
How do we know for sure that the total energy in the new created particles is absolutely zero?
If one particle is located even one micro of a Pico mm to the left with regards to the other one, than already its energy is different from the other particle.
In any real system, there is no perfect match. Even a very small difference of 10^1000 is still a difference.
So, how can you believe is such a perfect creation system?
Energy as a real quantity is not dependent on position. Potential energy and kinetic energy are observer dependent and can change values or even vanish in different reference frames.
3. Negative kinetic energy
You claim that the negative kinetic energy of the falling negative mass particle into the BH, can evaporate extra mass from the BH.
I can accept the idea that a negative mass particle can evaporate positive mass particle.
However, how its negative kinetic energy can evaporate any sort of mass?
Can you please prove it?
How could it be that a negative mass particle that is falling at velocity V can evaporate more mass than the same particle falling at a velocity V-v.?
Please be aware that the surface of the BH might not be so smooth.
Therefore, the same falling particle could collide with the surface of the BH at different H.
Hence, its velocity during the impact could be changed based on the location of the collision point.
Therefore, the same particle could collide with the surface of the BH at a different velocity (or kinetic energy).
This by itself sets a key violation in energy conservation - as you see it.
In Hawking’s model, the negative energy does not collide with the event horizon. It tunnels through it. It is just outside the event horizon then it is inside. No falling involved. It is already right there.
4. Gravity Energy
Hawking is specifically discuss on Gravity Energy. Not gravity force but gravity energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
If the gravity force is not energy than why he specifically highlights that the pair was produced by that gravitational energy?
So, why he is using the word energy instead of force for the key phase of pair production process?
Could it be that he knew that energy is needed to produce anything in our universe including new particle–antiparticle pair?
Therefore, why can't we understand that without investing energy, there will be no particle–antiparticle pair?
As he had no idea for the source of energy, he had selected the available gravity force as the source of the requested energy in that process.
If you claim that the gravity force has no energy, than how the universe could create this pair without investing energy?
Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.
But it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles. It is the extreme spacetime curvature near the event horizon that makes virtual real by shifting the vacuum energy state. This allows negative energy to be real but it does not supply the energy. This is difficult to explain without serious math and that is why plain English expositions are generally misleading.
5. Banking system EnergySorry, our Universe is not a banking system. If something is created in our Universe, the payment in energy must come in advance and in cash.
Nothing would be created without payment in real energy in ADVANCE!
So, don't you agree that new particles/photons could be created just after a transformation of real energy (in advance) from the BH to that creation process (whatever it is)?
Therefore, if you believe in BH mass evaporation process, than first the BH must evaporate some of its mass-energy and just then it can hope to get real particle/photon.I have also mentioned the time order issue earlier. I do not have an answer. If we ever get a viable quantum gravity theory, it might make sense. Especially if that involves a new concept of spacetime, which looks like it may very well be the case.Thanks
So, you also see a problem in this creation process.
The question is very simple:
When do we have to pay for in energy for the creation of the pair?
If it is just after the creation of the pair, than this is clearly a banking energy system.
Sorry, nothing in our universe would be created without a payment in energy in advanced.
I assume that even hawking knew it. Therefore, he called it Gravity Energy:
Therefore, in any production system, you must invest energy before you get something - even if you think that its energy is zero.
So, do you agree that without first investment with real energy - nothing could be created?
As I noted above, Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’. And as I have said earlier in this thread, Hawking seems to be mainly just balancing the books, showing that pluses and minuses come out right. But it is IMO short on mechanism. In exactly what way does the energy swap happen?
6. Energy waste/efficiency
In any system, there is no zero waste.
The sun converts Hydrogen to helium by fusion process. In that process we get some of the extra energy waste as heat.
Even in our car the energy efficiency is less than 100%.
Therefore, in any creation/transformation of energies some of the energy must be converted to heat and waste.
Therefore, in order to create a particle and antiparticle (even if we claim that their total energy is zero) the BH must invest more energy than zero.
However, you introduce a theory with 100% efficiency.
So, don't you agree that the idea that a BH creates real particles with total zero, with investment of zero energy, at zero waste of energy should be zero.
How can we accept/believe in such hypothetical idea?
In events at the quantum level there are no entropy considerations. Quanta come in ready-made chunks of specific sizes. A photon for photon exchange of the type Hawking postulates will always be exactly equal and opposite. You have to get a substantial number of particles before you can start talking about some of them leaving the system of interest.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/07/2020 06:07:56
Real negative mass-energy particles do not exist in our universe. Virtual ones do, paired with positive mass-energy particles. The net sum is zero mass energy.Thanks for this important confirmation.
As long as we keep the negative mass at the virtual imagination, than it is OK with me.
In Hawking’s model, the negative energy does not collide with the event horizon. It tunnels through it. It is just outside the event horizon then it is inside. No falling involved. It is already right there.If no falling involve, a negative particle with velocity V should have the same impact as a negative particle with higher or lower velocity.
In other words, its velocity is none relevant.
Therefore, the energy that is evaporated from the BH is exactly E=mc^2 as was stated by hawking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)"
He doesn't say even one word about the velocity of the new created particle.
Hence, Hawking does not claim for the potential or kinetic energy of the particle that falls in.
Therefore, the kinetic/potential energy of the escaped particle isn't part of the mass evaporation process.
Hawking’s model involves what can happen in the extreme curvature near the event horizon. He concentrates on photons in his discussionSo, hawking concentrates on Photons
I assume that you specifically mention the Photon as it is considered as mass less particle.
If this is the case, than you have to agree that Hawking doesn't offer a real solution for a particle with real mass.
In an asymptotically flat space, not deep in a black hole, it is reasonable to deal only with positive frequencies, that is, photons as we know them.Thanks for this information
However, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.
So, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.
The question is: what could be the impact of those negative frequencies?
You claim that a negative frequency might be translated to negative energy:
Recall that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A negative frequency translates to negative energy.This might be one possibility for mass less photon.
However, I think on a different aspect.
As I noted above, Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’.Yes he does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy..."
In any case, you confirm that gravity has energy!
Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.I wonder what could be the impact of that gravity energy under the extreme negative frequency and under the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon on a real mass particle?
Again, not mass less photon, but real mass particle?
We will come to that key issue soon.
But it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles. It is the extreme spacetime curvature near the event horizon that makes virtual real by shifting the vacuum energy state.So, how the extreme space-time curvature had been created?
Don't you agree that without the mighty BH gravity force there will be no space-time curvature near the event horizon.
I also agree with you that "it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles".
So, there must be other energy source that sets this activity.
However, what do you mean by: "shifting the vacuum energy state"?
Is there any energy in the vacuum due to the Mighty BH gravity force that is shifted?
Hence do you agree that the Mighty BH gravity force can shift that vacuum energy near the event horizon, in order to "makes virtual real" (as you have stated),
Virtual particles have real effects in the time they exist. One example is fine tuning electron energy levels a touch away from what is expected. Willis Lamb got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that one. Quite a few other things like that by now including the really exotic Casimir effect. There are those who like to say that in quantum field theory, virtual particles are just fluctuations in a field. What they do think real particles are in quantum field theory?Well, I don't claim that virtual particles are unrealistic.
I just say that real negative mass particle is a pure imagination.
You have stated that theoretically negative particle could be ejected outwards. So, if it was real, we had to monitor the impact of the negative gravity.
You also have stated:
This allows negative energy to be real but it does not supply the energy.This is the most important message in your answer!!!
You clearly claim that it "does not supply the energy".
Any real mass particle can't be created without investment of real energy
All it says that virtual particles can become real - but somehow they must get the energy in their mass from other real energy source.
Therefore, I don't accept the concept that virtual particles could be converted to real mass particles without real source of energy (even if you claim for positive and negative mass).
If you wish to get real mass particle - than you have to offer a real source of energy.
The source for that activity is called - Electromagnetic field/energy.
So, how it really works by theory D:
We all know that around the BH/SMBH there is a strong electromagnetic field.
That electromagnetic field sets the energy that is requested to transform a mass less virtual particle pair into real mass particle pair.
Therefore, the BH gravity force/energy sets the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon which "makes virtual real" by shifting the vacuum energy state. However, the energy in the particles mass is transformed from the electromagnetic field.
Therefore, there are two key elements that are working on converting the virtual mass particles to real particles.
The energy in their mass is given by the electromagnetic field, while their transformation from virtual to real is a result of the mighty BH's gravity force + the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon + the shifting the vacuum energy state + negative frequencies that contribute the orbital velocity of the new created particle.
Therefore, they get their ultra high velocity due to that "shifting the vacuum energy state".
So, as the virtual mass particles become real they keep their orbital velocity. The negative frequency or/and the vacuum energy is the source for that.
So, we get two particles with real mass (in both) but with reverse charged polarity orbiting at ultar high velocity in the same direction.
At the moment of their creation they directly affected by Lorentz force.
Therefore, they immediately splitted by this force that works according to their polarity.
One is shifted inwards, falls into the BH, while the other one is ejected outwards and join the other particles in the photon sphere or the accretion disc.
Hence, the falling particle increases the total mass of the BH.
The energy for the particle pair mass is taken by the magnetic field from the spin/heat of the BH.
However, the falling particle increases the heat/rotation of the BH due to its collision with the BH surface, while the one that is ejected contribute some energy to the BH by tidal force.
In total, all the BHs are increasing their mass over time, while the Universe gets more new particles.
Please be aware that nothing can fall into a BH or especially a SMBH.
The BH/SMBH magnetic field is so strong that any particle that will dare to come closer to the accretion disc will be boosted upwards/downwards at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, we clearly see the two molecular jet steams above and below the poles of our SMBH
In any case, without the BH's magnetic field there is no way to convert virtual mass particle into real particle.
Try to shut down the BH's magnetic field and you shut down the radiation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/07/2020 08:59:37
BBT doesn't need any of those things.Is it correct that our scientists have no clue about the energy source that was needed to start the Big Bang?
Why tell that lie?
Correct or incorrect?
How can you raise the flag of energy conservation law while you totally ignore that law when it comes to the BBT?
There is big difference between theory D to BBT.
In theory D the mighty SMBH's gravity force + the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon + the shifting in the vacuum energy state + negative frequencies that contribute the orbital velocity of the new created particle.
There is no request for free energy-mass.
So, let's make a deal
I give a waiver for the whole energy that was needed to set the Big bang, while you give a waiver just for that velocity of new created particle.
Agree?
If you still don't agree than please show the source of energy that was needed for the Big Bang!!!
Without it, I really can't understand how you can you still hold the flag of energy conservasion!
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26
How can you raise the flag of energy conservation law while you totally ignore that law when it comes to the BBT?I addressed that earlier.
There is big difference between theory D to BBT.
But you are right; there is a big difference.
One theory requires the sudden one-off provision of a lot of energy / mass.
And we have evidence here, in front of our eyes today, that the energy / mass was supplied- we are here.
Whereas your idea (it's not a theory) is that energy/ mass is being supplied on a continuous basis- for which there is no evidence nor a credible mechanism- just a misunderstanding of black hole radiation.
Worse than that, your idea doesnt actually help explain teh universe.
What you are saying is that black holes magically create mass.
Even if it was true it wouldn't help.
Because you need to explain where the first black hole came from.
Correct or incorrect?No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 26/07/2020 00:19:20
Real negative mass-energy particles do not exist in our universe. Virtual ones do, paired with positive mass-energy particles. The net sum is zero mass energy.Thanks for this important confirmation.
As long as we keep the negative mass at the virtual imagination, than it is OK with me.
As I described last time, virtual particles have real effects. They are not imaginary. They are real for their allowed lifetimes. Virtual photons having no mass never die, which is why the electromagnetic force they carry has infinite range. It is the detection of the predicted effects of virtual photons on electron energy levels and the confirmation of the actual existence of virtual particles that got Lamb his Nobel Prize.
In Hawking’s model, the negative energy does not collide with the event horizon. It tunnels through it. It is just outside the event horizon then it is inside. No falling involved. It is already right there.If no falling involve, a negative particle with velocity V should have the same impact as a negative particle with higher or lower velocity.
In other words, its velocity is none relevant.
Therefore, the energy that is evaporated from the BH is exactly E=mc^2 as was stated by hawking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)"
He doesn't say even one word about the velocity of the new created particle.
Hence, Hawking does not claim for the potential or kinetic energy of the particle that falls in.
Therefore, the kinetic/potential energy of the escaped particle isn't part of the mass evaporation process.
Since the negative energy particle tunnels through the event horizon courtesy of quantum uncertainty, there is no falling involved. The negative energy (negative frequency) of a photon that goes through the black hole accounts for the existence of a real photon outside. In the case of photons, the speed is always lightspeed. Negative mass-energy particles with non-zero negative mass tunneling through the event horizon can account for the existence of a real positive mass-energy particle with positive mass outside. But it does not provide them with kinetic energy.
Hawking’s model involves what can happen in the extreme curvature near the event horizon. He concentrates on photons in his discussionSo, hawking concentrates on Photons
I assume that you specifically mention the Photon as it is considered as mass less particle.
If this is the case, than you have to agree that Hawking doesn't offer a real solution for a particle with real mass.
Hawking does not provide for generating particles with mass in his discussion. Hawking even avoids the topic, noting that problems arise when the radius of curvature is in the neighborhood of the Compton wavelength of a particle with mass. Photons being massless have an infinite Compton wavelength. Even if particles with mass were created, there is still the kinetic energy issue. As has been discussed earlier, without a speed near that of light and fortuitously being pointed straight up, the particle will fall back, restoring its mass to the black hole and canceling the evaporation.
The Hawking radiation from a black hole is supposed to be the same as the temperature dependent radiation of a black body (one that absorbs any radiation falling on it). The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass. This works just fine with photon only radiation.
You are correct that there is a problem with particles with mass being emitted from a black hole.
In an asymptotically flat space, not deep in a black hole, it is reasonable to deal only with positive frequencies, that is, photons as we know them.Thanks for this information
However, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.
So, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.
The question is: what could be the impact of those negative frequencies?
You claim that a negative frequency might be translated to negative energy:Recall that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A negative frequency translates to negative energy.This might be one possibility for mass less photon.
However, I think on a different aspect.
As I noted above, Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’.Yes he does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy..."
In any case, you confirm that gravity has energy!
Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’ or ‘gravitational energy’ as the source of the particles. The source used by the Wiki article was An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. Hawking’s actual description of the process is well beyond introductory level. It is energy traded out of the black hole via the tunneling of negative energy into the black hole that gives the outside particle energy allowing it to become real. As described by Hawking anyway, and even that is a simplified shortcut version.
To complicate things a bit more, Hawking’s methodology involves (speaking very roughly) positive and negative frequencies.(Recall that particles with mass have a Compton wavelength which can be related to photon frequency.) Negative frequencies can be viewed as going backward in time. Annihilation is the canceling of a positive frequency. (Again very roughly speaking.) Real particles do not have negative frequencies. There is a sharp distinction between positive and negative frequencies. The vacuum state is when there are no particles that can be annihilated (no annihilation possible because no negative frequencies possible). But in a highly curved spacetime, time itself is bent and the difference between forward and backward in time is not clear. Negative frequencies become possible. The vacuum energy level has shifted.
Normally that would be possible only on the other side of the event horizon. But Hawking uses quantum uncertainty at extreme small radius of curvature to pull it off.
Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.I wonder what could be the impact of that gravity energy under the extreme negative frequency and under the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon on a real mass particle?
Again, not mass less photon, but real mass particle?
We will come to that key issue soon.
As will my response.
But it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles. It is the extreme spacetime curvature near the event horizon that makes virtual real by shifting the vacuum energy state.So, how the extreme space-time curvature had been created?
Don't you agree that without the mighty BH gravity force there will be no space-time curvature near the event horizon.
I also agree with you that "it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles".
So, there must be other energy source that sets this activity.
However, what do you mean by: "shifting the vacuum energy state"?
Is there any energy in the vacuum due to the Mighty BH gravity force that is shifted?
Hence do you agree that the Mighty BH gravity force can shift that vacuum energy near the event horizon, in order to "makes virtual real" (as you have stated),
The vacuum energy level shift merely makes negative frequencies possible, allowing negative energy virtual particle partners to act real. There is not yet any energy made available. The only energy source is that of the black hole mass.
Virtual particles have real effects in the time they exist. One example is fine tuning electron energy levels a touch away from what is expected. Willis Lamb got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that one. Quite a few other things like that by now including the really exotic Casimir effect. There are those who like to say that in quantum field theory, virtual particles are just fluctuations in a field. What they do think real particles are in quantum field theory?Well, I don't claim that virtual particles are unrealistic.
I just say that real negative mass particle is a pure imagination.
You have stated that theoretically negative particle could be ejected outwards. So, if it was real, we had to monitor the impact of the negative gravity.
I do not see why it should always be the negative energy partner that does the tunneling. Should it not be half and half? Causing negative energy particle sot be ejected? If there is a bias, it seems to me that the negative energy partner should go ‘up’ against gravity because it is in effect going backward in time.
You also have stated:This allows negative energy to be real but it does not supply the energy.This is the most important message in your answer!!!
You clearly claim that it "does not supply the energy".
Any real mass particle can't be created without investment of real energy
All it says that virtual particles can become real - but somehow they must get the energy in their mass from other real energy source.
Therefore, I don't accept the concept that virtual particles could be converted to real mass particles without real source of energy (even if you claim for positive and negative mass).
If you wish to get real mass particle - than you have to offer a real source of energy.
The source for that activity is called - Electromagnetic field/energy.
So, how it really works by theory D:
We all know that around the BH/SMBH there is a strong electromagnetic field
That electromagnetic field sets the energy that is requested to transform a mass less virtual particle pair into real mass particle pair.
Therefore, the BH gravity force/energy sets the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon which "makes virtual real" by shifting the vacuum energy state. However, the energy in the particles mass is transformed from the electromagnetic field.
Therefore, there are two key elements that are working on converting the virtual mass particles to real particles.
The energy in their mass is given by the electromagnetic field, while their transformation from virtual to real is a result of the mighty BH's gravity force + the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon + the shifting the vacuum energy state + negative frequencies that contribute the orbital velocity of the new created particle.
Therefore, they get their ultra high velocity due to that "shifting the vacuum energy state".
So, as the virtual mass particles become real they keep their orbital velocity. The negative frequency or/and the vacuum energy is the source for that.
So, we get two particles with real mass (in both) but with reverse charged polarity orbiting at ultar high velocity in the same direction.
At the moment of their creation they directly affected by Lorentz force.
Therefore, they immediately splitted by this force that works according to their polarity.
One is shifted inwards, falls into the BH, while the other one is ejected outwards and join the other particles in the photon sphere or the accretion disc.
Hence, the falling particle increases the total mass of the BH.
The energy for the particle pair mass is taken by the magnetic field from the spin/heat of the BH.
However, the falling particle increases the heat/rotation of the BH due to its collision with the BH surface, while the one that is ejected contribute some energy to the BH by tidal force.
In total, all the BHs are increasing their mass over time, while the Universe gets more new particles.
Please be aware that nothing can fall into a BH or especially a SMBH.
The BH/SMBH magnetic field is so strong that any particle that will dare to come closer to the accretion disc will be boosted upwards/downwards at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, we clearly see the two molecular jet steams above and below the poles of our SMBH
In any case, without the BH's magnetic field there is no way to convert virtual mass particle into real particle.
Try to shut down the BH's magnetic field and you shut down the radiation.
Black holes do not themselves have an inherent magnetic field, having no magnetic pole. Black holes have no hair as the saying goes. They are characterized entirely by mass, angular momentum and electric charge. Magnetic fields do appear to be associated with black holes because of the plasma jets they emit.
Magnetic fields have been detected and studied in detail very near the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Parts are orderly, other parts chaotic and it changes substantially very often. This is not a simple dynamo effect.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-magnetic-field-just-outside-our-black-hole-has-been-studied-for-the-first-time
However, observation of another black hole showed much less magnetic activity than models indicated.
https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni
In any case, it does appear that magnetic field activity is larger in larger black holes. Yet the Hawking radiation model has large black holes emit less than small ones. Magnetic fields as a factor in Hawking radiation does not sound like a contender.
By the way, the accretion disk around the black hole at the center of this galaxy is in “circular orbit of a compact polarized 'hot spot' of infrared synchrotron emission at approximately six to ten times the gravitational radius of a black hole of 4 million solar masses. This corresponds to the region just outside the innermost, stable, prograde circular orbit (ISCO) of a Schwarzschild-Kerr black hole, or near the retrograde ISCO of a highly spun-up Kerr hole. The polarization signature is consistent with orbital motion in a strong poloidal magnetic field.”
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12641
Anything that went inside the lowest possible orbit went down into the black hole. If the matter in the accretion disk instead went into the jets and nothing went into the black hole, why the sharp cutoff at the lowest possible orbit level?
There was an enormous x-ray flare from the black hole in 2013, 400 times brighter than the normal level.
Quote
The researchers have two main theories about what caused Sgr A* to erupt in this extreme way. The first is that an asteroid came too close to the supermassive black hole and was torn apart by gravity. The debris from such a tidal disruption became very hot and produced X-rays before disappearing forever across the black hole's point of no return, or event horizon.
“If an asteroid was torn apart, it would go around the black hole for a couple of hours – like water circling an open drain – before falling in,” said co-author Fred Baganoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “That’s just how long we saw the brightest X-ray flare last, so that is an intriguing clue for us to consider.”
If this theory holds up, it means astronomers may have found evidence for the largest asteroid to produce an observed X-ray flare after being torn apart by Sgr A*.
A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-hole
If the first theory is correct, it shows that things do fall into the black hole. If the second theory is correct, it would point to the accretion disk as the source of the coherent magnetic field that creates the jets, rather than the incoherent and highly variable magnetic field associated with the black hole. As the source I quoted above put it, the polarization signature of the accretion disk points to a strong poloidal magnetic field. Yet this is exactly what the black hole does not have. This would further weaken the case for a magnetic field being associated with Hawking radiation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/07/2020 02:56:54
You are correct that there is a problem with particles with mass being emitted from a black hole.Thanks
Negative mass-energy particles with non-zero negative mass tunneling through the event horizon can account for the existence of a real positive mass-energy particle with positive mass outside. But it does not provide them with kinetic energy.Thanks for this important confirmation about the kinetic energy that was the highlight of our discussion.
With regards to the SMBH magnetic filed:
In any case, it does appear that magnetic field activity is larger in larger black holes.Thanks
A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.So, it is clear that the flares are due to the mighty magnetic field around the Sgr A*
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-hole
In our earth the Magnetic field drifts the solar wind to the poles of our planet.
So, the Erath' magnetic field prevent from the solar wind to hit our planet.
In the same token, the SMBH' magnetic field protects the SMBH from any falling matter.
If any Atom from outside will dare to come closer, it will be boosted by that mighty magnetic field at almost 0.8c to about 27,000LY above/below the SMBH poles and be part of the molecular jet stream.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/07/2020 05:41:51
If the second theory is correct, it would point to the accretion disk as the source of the coherent magnetic field that creates the jets,What is the radius of the accretion disc?
Why can't we extract the real SMBH' mass directly from the accretion disc?
How do we know for sure that the mighty magnetic field is due to the accretion disc instead of the SMBH core rotation?
The total mass in the accretion disc is estimated at three Sun mass.
How that limited mass could generate the mighty magnetic field that is needed for the Molecular jet stream - of 0.8c up to 27,000L
I do recall that in one of the articles that you have offered it was stated that the polarity of the SMBH' magnetic field is changed at relatively high frequency (few hours?)
As the accretion disc rotates in one direction, how could it change the polarity without changing the orbital direction?
However, the SMBH can do it as the Earth is also changing the magnetic field polarity from time to time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/07/2020 09:39:31
No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Also, where did the first black hole come from?
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/07/2020 12:41:28
What you are saying is that black holes magically create mass.Thanks for your excellent question.
Even if it was true it wouldn't help.
Because you need to explain where the first black hole came from.
Based on theory D the whole infinite Universe had been evolved from a single BH.
So, I agree that we need to find an explanation for that first BH.
We can compare that first BH to the first living cell by Darwin theory.
He told us that the whole variety of life had been evolved form a single living cell.
No one really knows how that first living cell had been created.
However, that first "living cell" was the based for all the life in our planet.
In the same token, the first BH should be considered as the first "living matter cell" in the Universe.
So, how the First BH had been created is quite difficult question.
I would advice to use the first section of the BBT.
Please remember, the first BH had been created while the whole Universe was totally empty up to the infinity
So, for this first BH we can really claim that the time was zero.
Therefore, there is good chance that somehow something had been created out of nothing by some sort of a bang. But it must be a very compact something as a single tiny BH.
Based on the BBT everything in our universe had been created by a Bang.
It is absolutely none realistic to hope that the energy for Billions over billions galaxies, stars, BHs, SMBHs.. in our whole observable Universe had been created by a bang.
However, just one single tiny BH in one or even sevaral bangs might be feasible idea.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/07/2020 13:53:30
We can compare that first BH to the first living cell by Darwin theory.Or we can, more sensibly compare it to the BB.
It's an uncaused cause.
But now we have got that out of the way, perhaps you can reply to this- as the rules require.
No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/07/2020 13:58:50
We can compare that first BH to the first living cell by Darwin theory.Or we can, more sensibly compare it to the BB.
It's an uncaused cause. In any event, the physics couldn't work.~Even if your magic trick for making mass worked (spoiler alert; it doesn't) then it could only produce matter that was moving fast enough to escape the BH gravity. So any matter produced would spread out into space never to be seen again.
Any that was not going fast enough to escape would, obviously, fall in and so it too would never be seen again.
But now we have got that out of the way, perhaps you can reply to this- as the rules require.No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 27/07/2020 21:35:23
With regards to the SMBH magnetic filed:In any case, it does appear that magnetic field activity is larger in larger black holes.Thanks
You missed the point. Larger black holes have lower Hawking radiation rates. If the magnetic field had anything to do with it, larger black holes would have larger Hawking radiation rates rather than smaller.
A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.So, it is clear that the flares are due to the mighty magnetic field around the Sgr A*
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-hole
In our earth the Magnetic field drifts the solar wind to the poles of our planet.
So, the Erath' magnetic field prevent from the solar wind to hit our planet.
In the same token, the SMBH' magnetic field protects the SMBH from any falling matter.
If any Atom from outside will dare to come closer, it will be boosted by that mighty magnetic field at almost 0.8c to about 27,000LY above/below the SMBH poles and be part of the molecular jet stream.
The Earth has a very orderly magnetic field. Sgr A* has a very disorderly one. I will repeat what I said in a prior post, Please read it,
Quote
Black holes do not themselves have an inherent magnetic field, having no magnetic pole. Black holes have no hair as the saying goes. They are characterized entirely by mass, angular momentum and electric charge. Magnetic fields do appear to be associated with black holes because of the plasma jets they emit.
Magnetic fields have been detected and studied in detail very near the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Parts are orderly, other parts chaotic and it changes substantially very often. This is not a simple dynamo effect.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-magnetic-field-just-outside-our-black-hole-has-been-studied-for-the-first-time
However, observation of another black hole showed much less magnetic activity than models indicated.
https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni
The magnetic field activity around the galactic black hole is totally unlike that of the Earth. It is not going to coherently guide anything. In any case, the magnetic field of the earth guides lightweight charged particles from the solar wind toward the poles. It does not do a thing to ward off meteors. If a magnetic field centered on the black hole operated like this, there would be tremendous activity at the poles, there is not.
The mechanism that keeps the Sagittarius black hole quieter than the SMBHs found in most large galaxies appears to be a coherent magnetic field in the region around the black hole, but not the incoherent fields associated with the black hole itself. This magnetic field has a spiral shape that directs gas and dust into an orbital path. Some still gets through and falls into the black hole.
https://www.space.com/milky-way-supermassive-black-hole-magnetic-field-quiet.html
Accretion discIf the second theory is correct, it would point to the accretion disk as the source of the coherent magnetic field that creates the jets,What is the radius of the accretion disc?
The accretion disc has an outside radius of about 88 billion km. Most of that is cool gas. The hot spot inner region has a radius of 130-220 million km. The disc cuts off at about 11 million km at the innermost stable circular orbit. Anything below that point is going to fall into the black hole. Temperature in the inner part of the accretion disc reaches 10 million K.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12641
https://www.space.com/milky-way-monster-black-hole-cool-disk.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1242-z
https://www.realclearscience.com/quick_and_clear_science/2019/06/06/the_milky_ways_supermassive_black_hole_has_an_accretion_disk_thats_25x_larger_than_the_solar_system.html
Why can't we extract the real SMBH' mass directly from the accretion disc?
Star S2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)) has been observed for several decades in its orbit around the Sagittarius A*. This allows much more precise calculations of the mass of the black hole.
How do we know for sure that the mighty magnetic field is due to the accretion disc instead of the SMBH core rotation?
A black hole is not a planet. A black hole is described completely by three characteristics: mass, angular momentum and electric charge. A black hole with a non-zero electric charge would quickly get neutralized by attracting opposite charged ions. Nothing comes out from behind the event horizon including magnetic fields. It does not matter if a black hole had a rotating iron core or whatever, it would have no effect on the outside world. Black holes have no magnetic poles. In addition, the chaotic nature of the constantly shifting magnetic fields near the event horizon rules out any coherent magnetic field associated with the black hole itself.
The total mass in the accretion disc is estimated at three Sun mass.
How that limited mass could generate the mighty magnetic field that is needed for the Molecular jet stream - of 0.8c up to 27,000L
The accretion disc is highly ionized plasma and its innermost portion is moving at 30% lightspeed in a circular orbit. Sounds like it could generate quite a powerful magnetic field.
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-material-orbiting-black-hole.html
I do recall that in one of the articles that you have offered it was stated that the polarity of the SMBH' magnetic field is changed at relatively high frequency (few hours?)
As the accretion disc rotates in one direction, how could it change the polarity without changing the orbital direction?
However, the SMBH can do it as the Earth is also changing the magnetic field polarity from time to time.
What I referenced was that there is no magnetic pole on the black hole, they do not have them. There are chaotic magnetic fields all around near the event horizon. Some are organized, some are disorganized but everything changes very frequently. As I recall, there is a completely different situation typically around every 15 minutes.
BTW “the Sagittarius A* radio emissions are not centered on the black hole, but arise from a bright spot in the region around the black hole, close to the event horizon, possibly in the accretion disc, or a relativistic jet of material ejected from the disc.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole
Bottom Line: Magnetic fields around a black hole have no bearing on Hawking radiation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/07/2020 09:03:58
The accretion disc has an outside radius of about 88 billion km. The hot spot inner region has a radius of 130-220 million km. The disc cuts off at about 11 million km at the innermost stable circular orbit. Anything below that point is going to fall into the black hole. Temperature in the inner part of the accretion disc reaches 10 million K.Thanks
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12641
Before we continue our discussion on any other subject, let's focus on the accretion disc.
In the following article it is stated that the "magnetized accretion disk/torus of ∼10 light minutes in diameter".
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.12641.pdf
"Intercontinental microwave interferometry and polarized infrared(IR)/X-ray variability on 10-30 minute timescales suggest that this emission comes from highly relativistic electrons in a hot, magnetized accretion disk/torus of ∼10 light minutes in diameter, plus perhaps a jet, just outside the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) of the putative massive black hole "
Therefore, the radius of the accretion disc is about 10/2 = 5 light minutes. Which is about 88 Billion Km as you have stated.
Can we assume that the orbital velocity of the plasma at the accretion disc (R=88Bkm) is 0.3c?
Based on this data, what is the estimated mass of the SMBH?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/07/2020 10:12:15
Can we assume that the orbital velocity of the plasma at the accretion disc (R=88Bkm) is 0.3c?It's not clear why we would.
Based on this data, what is the estimated mass of the SMBH?The estimated mass - given in that paper- is 4.14 million times the mass of the Sun.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/07/2020 10:12:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26
No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 28/07/2020 13:29:40
The accretion disc has an outside radius of about 88 billion km. The hot spot inner region has a radius of 130-220 million km. The disc cuts off at about 11 million km at the innermost stable circular orbit. Anything below that point is going to fall into the black hole. Temperature in the inner part of the accretion disc reaches 10 million K.Thanks
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12641
Before we continue our discussion on any other subject, let's focus on the accretion disc.
In the following article it is stated that the "magnetized accretion disk/torus of ∼10 light minutes in diameter".
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.12641.pdf
"Intercontinental microwave interferometry and polarized infrared(IR)/X-ray variability on 10-30 minute timescales suggest that this emission comes from highly relativistic electrons in a hot, magnetized accretion disk/torus of ∼10 light minutes in diameter, plus perhaps a jet, just outside the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) of the putative massive black hole "
Therefore, the radius of the accretion disc is about 10/2 = 5 light minutes. Which is about 88 Billion Km as you have stated.
Can we assume that the orbital velocity of the plasma at the accretion disc (R=88Bkm) is 0.3c?
Based on this data, what is the estimated mass of the SMBH?
As I said in my previous post, the 88 billion km includes the large cool gas region. The 5 light minutes = 90 million km radius is the innermost portion of the hot region. That innermost portion is densest and moving the fastest and so has “highly relativistic electrons in a hot, magnetized accretion disk/torus”.
To calculate the mass of the black hole that close to the event horizon would require Schwarzschild-Kerr dynamics, which in turn would require assuming a mass for the black hole to begin with and interpolating, making the equations seriously non-linear. In addition, there are dynamics going on in the accretion disc that could affect measured velocity independent of gravity, such as friction, temperature, the magnetic field, continually infalling material etc. Not a good way to measure.
A much easier way to determine the mass of the black hole is to look at the hyperbolic orbit of the star S2, which orbits the black hole at a significant distance, enough to avoid hard to resolve non-linearities, but follows a distinctly non-Keplerian elliptical orbit. Decades of data on the position of S2 is available and was used to produce the estimate of 4.31 million solar masses. I linked to this in my previous post but here it is again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)#Orbit
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/07/2020 15:47:28
As I said in my previous post, the 88 billion km includes the large cool gas region. The 5 light minutes = 90 million km radius is the innermost portion of the hot region. That innermost portion is densest and moving the fastest and so has “highly relativistic electrons in a hot, magnetized accretion disk/torus”.
To calculate the mass of the black hole that close to the event horizon would require Schwarzschild-Kerr dynamics, which in turn would require assuming a mass for the black hole to begin with and interpolating, making the equations seriously non-linear. In addition, there are dynamics going on in the accretion disc that could affect measured velocity independent of gravity, such as friction, temperature, the magnetic field, continually infalling material etc. Not a good way to measure.
Sorry
Gravity is gravity.
Do you claim that there is a friction in gravity?
Based on Newton formula we can extract the real mass of the SMBH.
Therefore:
The formula is as follow:
V^2 = M G / R
M = V^2 R / G
Hence,
If V = 0.3c = 0.3 * 300,000 Km /s = 90,000Km /s = 90,000,000 m/s = 90 *10^6 m/s
R = 88 BKm = 88 * 10^9 Km = 88 * 10^12 m
M = (90 * 10^6) ^2 * 88 * 10^12 / 1.67 *10^11= 8100 10^12 *88*10^12 *0.86 * 10^11
= 613,008 *10^ 33 = 6.13 * 10 ^ 38 kg?
The sun mass is:
Sm = 1,989,100,000,000,000,000,000 billion kg = 1.9891 *10^30 Kg
M(SMBH) = 6.13*10^38 / 1.9891*10^30 = 3.08 *10^8 Sm = 0.3 B Sun mas
Therefore, based on this calculation the mass of the SMBH is 0.3 B Sun mass.
Actually, do you agree that if your following message is correct and there is a friction due to "temperature, the magnetic field, continually infalling material etc" than the real mass of the SMBH shold be much more that that?
A much easier way to determine the mass of the black hole is to look at the hyperbolic orbit of the star S2, which orbits the black hole at a significant distance, enough to avoid hard to resolve non-linearities, but follows a distinctly non-Keplerian elliptical orbit.Sorry S2 doesn't orbit around the SMBH.
If you monitor S2 orbital path you would notice that it moves inwards and outwards in its elliptic orbital shape. Few years ago our scientists even observe the S2 and the SMBH at almost the same line. I claim that the SMBH isn't located even at the S2 orbital plane (including all the other S stars).
Therefore, S2 and all the other S stars can't give real indication about the mass of the SMBH.
The real mass should be extracted from the accretion disc.
So, do you agree that the Minimal mass of the SMBH should be 0.3 B Sun mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/07/2020 16:30:30
Do you claim that there is a friction in gravity?No, he didn't.
Did you try reading what he wrote?
Based on Newton formula we can extract the real mass of the SMBH.As long as the velocities involved are not close to the speed of light.
Unfortunately,
If V = 0.3cthen you obviously can't use Newtonian physics.
So why did you try?
And on a related note
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26
No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 28/07/2020 19:32:30
As I said in my previous post, the 88 billion km includes the large cool gas region. The 5 light minutes = 90 million km radius is the innermost portion of the hot region. That innermost portion is densest and moving the fastest and so has “highly relativistic electrons in a hot, magnetized accretion disk/torus”.
To calculate the mass of the black hole that close to the event horizon would require Schwarzschild-Kerr dynamics, which in turn would require assuming a mass for the black hole to begin with and interpolating, making the equations seriously non-linear. In addition, there are dynamics going on in the accretion disc that could affect measured velocity independent of gravity, such as friction, temperature, the magnetic field, continually infalling material etc. Not a good way to measure.
Sorry
Gravity is gravity.
Do you claim that there is a friction in gravity?
Friction changes motion. With temperatures are high as 10^7 K, primarily due to friction, you cannot take the disc as a coherently moving body. Speeds as high as 0.3 c as determined from spectrographic readings may not represent the actual orbital speed. There could be lateral motion, or heat expansion changing the perceived motion.
Based on Newton formula we can extract the real mass of the SMBH.
As I said, you cannot use Newtonian mechanics. The disc extends right up to the lowest stable circular orbit for massive particles. This is General Relativity territory. You have to at least use Schwarzschild dynamics.
Therefore:
The formula is as follow:
V^2 = M G / R
M = V^2 R / G
Hence,
If V = 0.3c = 0.3 * 300,000 Km /s = 90,000Km /s = 90,000,000 m/s = 90 *10^6 m/s
R = 88 BKm = 88 * 10^9 Km = 88 * 10^12 m
M = (90 * 10^6) ^2 * 88 * 10^12 / 1.67 *10^11= 8100 10^12 *88*10^12 *0.86 * 10^11
= 613,008 *10^ 33 = 6.13 * 10 ^ 38 kg?
The sun mass is:
Sm = 1,989,100,000,000,000,000,000 billion kg = 1.9891 *10^30 Kg
M(SMBH) = 6.13*10^38 / 1.9891*10^30 = 3.08 *10^8 Sm = 0.3 B Sun mas
Therefore, based on this calculation the mass of the SMBH is 0.3 B Sun mass.
You are using the extent of the cold gas disc as the part that is moving at 0.3 c. Totally wrong. Also, your value for G is wrong.
Actually, do you agree that if your following message is correct and there is a friction due to "temperature, the magnetic field, continually infalling material etc" than the real mass of the SMBH shold be much more that that?
The 0.3 c figure for orbital speed estimate has a lot of intervening variables as I discussed above. But I have no idea what you are trying to convey here.
A much easier way to determine the mass of the black hole is to look at the hyperbolic orbit of the star S2, which orbits the black hole at a significant distance, enough to avoid hard to resolve non-linearities, but follows a distinctly non-Keplerian elliptical orbit.Sorry S2 doesn't orbit around the SMBH.
If you monitor S2 orbital path you would notice that it moves inwards and outwards in its elliptic orbital shape. Few years ago our scientists even observe the S2 and the SMBH at almost the same line. I claim that the SMBH isn't located even at the S2 orbital plane (including all the other S stars).
Therefore, S2 and all the other S stars can't give real indication about the mass of the SMBH.
The real mass should be extracted from the accretion disc.
So, do you agree that the Minimal mass of the SMBH should be 0.3 B Sun mass.
So you think there is another 4.3 billion solar mass object very near to Sgr A* that S2 is really orbiting around that has somehow escaped notice.
Here are the orbital paths of the five stars. Sgr A* is obvious at the focus of each of the ellipses, once you factor in relativistic considerations. You do know that in general orbits are ellipses not circles, right?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg/288px-Galactic_centre_orbits.svg.png)
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/07/2020 04:37:13
your value for G is wrong.Thanks
You are correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
"The measured value of the constant is known with some certainty to four significant digits. In SI units its value is approximately 6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2."
I have used 1.67 instead of 6.674.
So, the mass should be lower by about 4 times.
SMBH mass (by newton) = 75M solar mass.
As I said, you cannot use Newtonian mechanics. The disc extends right up to the lowest stable circular orbit for massive particles. This is General Relativity territory. You have to at least use Schwarzschild dynamics.OK.
Based on Newton (and assuming that there is no friction and my calculation is correct) the requested mass of the SMBH is 0.3B Sun mass.
However, you claim that it is General Relativity territory.
Therefore, can you please show how General Relativity can justify a mass of only 4.1 M solar mass (almost 100 times lower than Newton) for that activity (assuming that there is no friction or high temp)?
Friction changes motion. With temperatures are high as 10^7 K, primarily due to friction, you cannot take the disc as a coherently moving body. Speeds as high as 0.3 c as determined from spectrographic readings may not represent the actual orbital speed. There could be lateral motion, or heat expansion changing the perceived motion.Actually, the plasma temp at the accretion disc is estimated at the range of 10^9K.
Therefore, as there is so high friction at the accretion disc, don't you agree that it should reduce the velocity or the orbital plasma?
Therefore, if we measure an orbital velocity of 0.3c with the impact of the friction, than what should be the velocity without a friction?
Don't you agree that without a friction the orbital velocity SMBH must be quite higher?
Should it be 0.5c, 0,75c or even c?
If the velocity is higher, than the requested SMBH should be higher.
Therefore, based on General Relativity what is the minimal SMBH mass that is needed to suport 0.3c orbital velocity at radius of 88B Km while the friction is so high?
How could it be that this estimated ultra small 4.1M Sun mass could be good enough for that job?
Here are the orbital paths of the five stars. Sgr A* is obvious at the focus of each of the ellipses, once you factor in relativistic considerations. You do know that in general orbits are ellipses not circles, right?Please look again at the diagram that you had offered.
S13 sets almost a pure orbital cycle.
Based on newton the main object should be located at the center. Therefore, how could it be that the SMBH is not located exactly at the center of this cycle?
Please look at S1 and S12.
S1 elliptical shape is very similar to S12 (but bigger).
Take them out from the diagram and try to estimate where the center should be located for each one of them?
So, as they look similar, it is expected to see the center of mass at relatively similar locations in the diagram.
Surprisingly, this is not the case, while the center of S1 is not located at symmetrical spot which could be justified by Kepler.
In any case, this diagram is presented in 2D. I don't know what is the accuracy of the distance to each object at 3D.
Somehow it seems to me that in 3D some of the orbital cycles do not even cut each other.
So, there is high chance that the SMBH is not located at the orbital plane of some of those stars.
Therefore, those stars can't be used as a mass reference for the SMBH.
Only the orbital accretion disc must be used as a real reference as it clearly orbits around the SMBH!!!.
Why do you refuse to use this vital information???
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2020 10:12:12
S13 sets almost a pure orbital cycle.All orbits are orbital.
Do you mean that you think it is circular?
It's plainly elliptical and as far as I can tell Sgr5 is at the focus.
Why do you refuse to use this vital information???Well, because the disk is subject to other forces - like friction.
Also it's more difficult to define the exact location, and we don't know the velocity.
It's not a matter of refusing to use the information.
The information does not exist.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 10:12:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/07/2020 13:53:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26
No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 29/07/2020 15:53:19
As I said, you cannot use Newtonian mechanics. The disc extends right up to the lowest stable circular orbit for massive particles. This is General Relativity territory. You have to at least use Schwarzschild dynamics.OK.
Based on Newton (and assuming that there is no friction and my calculation is correct) the requested mass of the SMBH is 0.3B Sun mass.
However, you claim that it is General Relativity territory.
Therefore, can you please show how General Relativity can justify a mass of only 4.1 M solar mass (almost 100 times lower than Newton) for that activity (assuming that there is no friction or high temp)?
As I have pointed out before, you continue to combine the outer radius of the cold gas cloud and speed of the inner radius of the accretion disc. Your math is wrong. You are using the wrong numbers.
Friction changes motion. With temperatures are high as 10^7 K, primarily due to friction, you cannot take the disc as a coherently moving body. Speeds as high as 0.3 c as determined from spectrographic readings may not represent the actual orbital speed. There could be lateral motion, or heat expansion changing the perceived motion.Actually, the plasma temp at the accretion disc is estimated at the range of 10^9K.
My source says 10 million = 10^7 K
https://www.space.com/milky-way-monster-black-hole-cool-disk.html
What is your source?
Therefore, as there is so high friction at the accretion disc, don't you agree that it should reduce the velocity or the orbital plasma?The high temperature due to friction in the innermost past of the accretion disc might result in local motions that could bias spectrographic readings and slightly modify the speed estimate. The temperature is not going to change the actual orbital speed. Please learn some physics.
Therefore, if we measure an orbital velocity of 0.3c with the impact of the friction, than what should be the velocity without a friction?
Don't you agree that without a friction the orbital velocity SMBH must be quite higher?
Should it be 0.5c, 0,75c or even c
If the velocity is higher, than the requested SMBH should be higher.
Therefore, based on General Relativity what is the minimal SMBH mass that is needed to suport 0.3c orbital velocity at radius of 88B Km while the friction is so high?
How could it be that this estimated ultra small 4.1M Sun mass could be good enough for that job?[ ?
Here are the orbital paths of the five stars. Sgr A* is obvious at the focus of each of the ellipses, once you factor in relativistic considerations. You do know that in general orbits are ellipses not circles, right?Please look again at the diagram that you had offered.
S13 sets almost a pure orbital cycle.
Based on newton the main object should be located at the center. Therefore, how could it be that the SMBH is not located exactly at the center of this cycle?
Please look at S1 and S12.
S1 elliptical shape is very similar to S12 (but bigger).
Take them out from the diagram and try to estimate where the center should be located for each one of them?
So, as they look similar, it is expected to see the center of mass at relatively similar locations in the diagram.
Surprisingly, this is not the case, while the center of S1 is not located at symmetrical spot which could be justified by Kepler.
In any case, this diagram is presented in 2D. I don't know what is the accuracy of the distance to each object at 3D.
Somehow it seems to me that in 3D some of the orbital cycles do not even cut each other.
So, there is high chance that the SMBH is not located at the orbital plane of some of those stars.
Therefore, those stars can't be used as a mass reference for the SMBH.
Only the orbital accretion disc must be used as a real reference as it clearly orbits around the SMBH!!!.
Why do you refuse to use this vital information???
Keplerian orbits are ellipses. The center of gravitation lies at a focal point of the ellipse. An ellipse can be rotated on its long axis at less than a right angle and still be recognized as an ellipse. The focii do not move. A 2D projection of a 3D reality does not change that. Please learn some math.
The orbits deviate slightly from Keplerian ellipses due to relativistic effects, especially S2. The deviations are exactly what they are expected to be from a 4 million mass black hole being the gravitating body.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2020 20:08:23
The orbits deviate slightly from Keplerian ellipses due to relativistic effects, especially S2. The deviations are exactly what they are expected to be from a 4 million mass black hole being the gravitating body.
What do you mean by relativistic effects? How that effect can impact the orbital path?
Please look at the following diagram:
https://www.lcas-astronomy.org/articles/images/orbit.gif
We see in two images:
1. Copernican orbit diagram - Circular orbit while the host is located exactly at the center.
2. Keplerian orbit diagram - Elliptical orbit while the host is located at a symmetrical point as the distance to 1 is identical to the distance to 7. in the same token 2 to 6 and 5 to 3.
Please look at S13 orbital Path (blue line).
https://danspace77.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/18-028d.png
It looks as a perfect circular orbit.
Therefore, it fully meets the Copernican orbit. Hence, the Host point should be located just at the center.
Surprisingly, the SMBH is located somewhere at the upper side. How could it be that this idea of relativistic effects could set such an impact?
Don't you see that S13 doesn't orbit directly around the SMBH?
Now please look at S2 orbital path.
As it is elliptical, and based on Keplerian orbit, the host should be located at the symmetrical point. Hence, it is expected that the distance to point 1 should be identical to point 7.
Again - surprisingly, the SMBH is located at the offside to the left.
So, also in this case, how the relativistic effects could set such severe impact?
There is no almost correct orbital path. If S13 or S2 were orbiting around the SMBH they have to obey to the orbital law.
Therefore, it is quite clear to me that S13 and S2 don't orbit directly around the SMBH.
There is another important issue.
We know that that there are many BH at the center of our galaxy near the SMBH.
https://www.ajc.com/news/science/000-black-holes-hiding-center-milky-way-study-suggests/4r7M8X1ECfYNwiHrS8utIN/
Scientists have found evidence of 10,000 black holes in the Milky Way galaxy, surrounding its central suppermassive black hole, Sagittarius A*.
Some of those black holes are quite massive:
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/massive-black-hole-discovered-near-heart-of-the-milky-way/
"Massive black hole discovered near heart of the Milky Way"
"A huge black hole – about 100,000 times more massive than our Sun – has been discovered lurking in a toxic gas cloud near the heart of the Milky Way. If confirmed, the object will rank as the second largest black hole in the Milky Way after the supermassive Sagittarius A* which is located at the very centre of the galaxy."
Those BH could have an impact on the orbital Path of S2 and S13.
Let's look at the orbital path of S2:
https://astro.swarthmore.edu/ir/ir_results.html
https://www.universetoday.com/72315/astronomy-without-a-telescope-galactic-gravity-lab/
We can see clearly that S2 is not always detected at the expected orbital path. It moves around it. In and out.
That shows that S2 does not orbit directly around the SMBH but it orbits around some massive object as BH or even MBH while they both move together and set the final orbital path of S2.
As an example, let's assume that we could shut down the light of the Earth.
So, from outside, you can only see the Sun and the Moon.
If you monitor the moon, you would see that it is moving in and out with regards to the expected orbital path around the Sun.
This proves that S2 is not there by itself. It must orbit around a massive object as BH or MBH while they both set the orbital path.
In any case, as the orbital path of S13 and S2 do not fully obey to Copernican or keperlian orbits, than it proves that they do not orbit directly around the SMBH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2020 21:13:27
Shouldn't the BH be on the major diameter of the orbits?
Post by: Halc on 30/07/2020 21:41:30
It can't really matter- because one BH can't make a universe but I think there is something odd about that diagram.Yes, in the case of each of those orbits, the BH is on the major diameter, but that major diameter is not obvious when you're looking at a 2D projection of a 3D orbit. You're used to pretty 2D diagrams of the solar system. The orbit of Venus is pretty circular, but from our perspective, it just moves back and forth, sometimes hitting (eclipsing) the sun.
Shouldn't the BH be on the major diameter of the orbits?
So I look at that diagram, and the most circular orbit is definitely S1, not because of its shape from our perspective, but because the BH is most centered in that path. The more off to the side it is, the more eccentric the orbit.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2020 22:06:22
Because, if they are, I still see a problem.
Post by: Malamute Lover on 30/07/2020 22:10:05
The orbits deviate slightly from Keplerian ellipses due to relativistic effects, especially S2. The deviations are exactly what they are expected to be from a 4 million mass black hole being the gravitating body.
What do you mean by relativistic effects? How that effect can impact the orbital path?
One of the early confirmations of General Relativity was explaining the odd orbit of Mercury. Because the Sun creates a gravity well and because Mercury is so close, there is less space in the region of Mercury’s orbit than expected from a Euclidean model.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/tests-of-general-relativity/
In similar manner the space that S2 and the other orbiting stars are in diverges noticeably from Euclidean flat.
For information about S2 and General Relativity, try these.
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/s2-star-general-relativity-08339.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-star-dancing-around-a-supermassive-black-hole-is-another-win-for-relativity
https://www.space.com/41291-relativity-revealed-milky-way-core.html
https://www.mpg.de/14692117/detection-of-schwarzschild-precession-in-the-orbit-of-star-s2
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2017/12/aa31148-17/aa31148-17.html
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/04/aa37813-20/aa37813-20.html
There is a lot more but I got tired of copy/paste. If you really wanted to know about S2 and relativity you could have done a search on ‘s2 star relativity’.
Please look at the following diagram:
https://www.lcas-astronomy.org/articles/images/orbit.gif
We see in two images:
1. Copernican orbit diagram - Circular orbit while the host is located exactly at the center.
2. Keplerian orbit diagram - Elliptical orbit while the host is located at a symmetrical point as the distance to 1 is identical to the distance to 7. in the same token 2 to 6 and 5 to 3.
Please look at S13 orbital Path (blue line).
F2018%2F02%2F18-028d.png#id=-1&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fdanspace77.files.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F02%2F18-028d.png&action=click
It looks as a perfect circular orbit.
Therefore, it fully meets the Copernican orbit. Hence, the Host point should be located just at the center.
Surprisingly, the SMBH is located somewhere at the upper side. How could it be that this idea of relativistic effects could set such an impact?
Don't you see that S13 doesn't orbit directly around the SMBH
Now please look at S2 orbital path.
As it is elliptical, and based on Keplerian orbit, the host should be located at the symmetrical point. Hence, it is expected that the distance to point 1 should be identical to point 7.
Again - surprisingly, the SMBH is located at the offside to the left.
So, also in this case, how the relativistic effects could set such severe impact?
There is no almost correct orbital path. If S13 or S2 were orbiting around the SMBH they have to obey to the orbital law.
Therefore, it is quite clear to me that S13 and S2 don't orbit directly around the SMBH.
Here is the picture presented earlier.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg/288px-Galactic_centre_orbits.svg.png)
If you count graph boxes, you will see that the orbit of S13 is an ellipse. The orbit is Keplerian, not Copernican.
Here is a fun video.
You have a link to a png that is in garbage form. I extracted the actual url
danspace77.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/18-028d.png
and it does not work. danspace77 is there in wordpress, but the picture is not.
There is another important issue.
We know that that there are many BH at the center of our galaxy near the SMBH.
https://www.ajc.com/news/science/000-black-holes-hiding-center-milky-way-study-suggests/4r7M8X1ECfYNwiHrS8utIN/
Scientists have found evidence of 10,000 black holes in the Milky Way galaxy, surrounding its central suppermassive black hole, Sagittarius A*.
Some of those black holes are quite massive:
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/massive-black-hole-discovered-near-heart-of-the-milky-way/
"Massive black hole discovered near heart of the Milky Way"
"A huge black hole – about 100,000 times more massive than our Sun – has been discovered lurking in a toxic gas cloud near the heart of the Milky Way. If confirmed, the object will rank as the second largest black hole in the Milky Way after the supermassive Sagittarius A* which is located at the very centre of the galaxy."
Those BH could have an impact on the orbital Path of S2 and S13.
Let's look at the orbital path of S2:
https://astro.swarthmore.edu/ir/ir_results.html
https://www.universetoday.com/72315/astronomy-without-a-telescope-galactic-gravity-lab/
We can see clearly that S2 is not always detected at the expected orbital path. It moves around it. In and out.
That shows that S2 does not orbit directly around the SMBH but it orbits around some massive object as BH or even MBH while they both move together and set the final orbital path of S2.
As an example, let's assume that we could shut down the light of the Earth.
So, from outside, you can only see the Sun and the Moon.
If you monitor the moon, you would see that it is moving in and out with regards to the expected orbital path around the Sun.
This proves that S2 is not there by itself. It must orbit around a massive object as BH or MBH while they both set the orbital path.
In any case, as the orbital path of S13 and S2 do not fully obey to Copernican or keperlian orbits, than it proves that they do not orbit directly around the SMBH.
The 100,000 solar mass black hole is 200 light years away. That’s 10^15 kilometers. It is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. If there were another black hole in the neighborhood powerful enough to influence the orbits of the stars being discussed, those orbits would be wildly chaotic, not just because of the two source of serious gravitation but because being so close to the black hole at the galactic center it would be in orbit around that black hole. There is no other SMBH in the neighborhood.
As heavily documented at the beginning of this post, the orbit of S2 is not Copernican, nor is it exactly Keplerian due to relativistic effects.
Post by: Halc on 30/07/2020 22:59:28
Are the orbits planar?They're all (more or less) planar.
Because, if they are, I still see a problem.
I can look at any ellipse from just the right perspective and it will appear to be circular. S13 is a good approximation of that.
I can look at any circle from a non-perpendicular perspective and it will appear elliptical. Dave can't envision that. You can't either? Here's a hula hoop:
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hula-hoop-silver-purple-isolated-260nw-691083925.jpg)
The 2D image traces a highly eccentric ellipse, and yet the 3D object photographed is circular. Is that so hard?
I can do the same with an ellipse of any eccentricity, viewing it low along the long axis until it projects a circle. S13 is like that, clearly a significantly eccentric orbit, as evidenced by Sgr-A being so off-center.
S1 is hardly circular, but is the least eccentric of the bunch, as evidence by Sgr-A appearing closest to the middle.
S2's long axis runs not vertical, but more or less in the direction of 1 O-clock in that image.
S8 and S14 are really as eccentric as they appear.
"A huge black hole – about 100,000 times more massive than our Sun – has been discovered lurking in a toxic gas cloud near the heart of the Milky Way"What lovely writing by indianexpress. Why put the word 'toxic' in there. Toxic to what exactly? It there to discourage tourists from trying to breathe in the gasses near this black hole, like most gas clouds elsewhere might not be as toxic as this one?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2020 23:26:40
The BH should be on the major axis but it doesn't look like it.
It's not a matter of making an ellipse look like a circle- if you consider the ellipse as a conic section, it's obvious that, from the point of the cone, it looks like a circle.
Nor is it a matter of making a circle look like an ellipse- there are old poems about that.
art.png (179.71 kB . 504x441 - viewed 2890 times)The issue is that the real major axis may not be where it "looks" like it is.
If you draw an ellipse and its major axis, then look at it along a line parallel to that axis and nearly parallel to the plane of the paper, you see the line at right angles to major axis of the projection.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/08/2020 05:28:11
The 2D image traces a highly eccentric ellipse, and yet the 3D object photographed is circular. Is that so hard?Yes, your explanation is very clear.
I can do the same with an ellipse of any eccentricity, viewing it low along the long axis until it projects a circle. S13 is like that, clearly a significantly eccentric orbit, as evidenced by Sgr-A being so off-center.
S1 is hardly circular, but is the least eccentric of the bunch, as evidence by Sgr-A appearing closest to the middle.
S2's long axis runs not vertical, but more or less in the direction of 1 O-clock in that image.
However, in this case, the real orbital cycle of S2 might be much bigger than the 2 x 10 Light days that we observe in 2D. So, how can we set any realistic calculation on S2 without understanding the real size of its orbital cycle?
Based on Kepler law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#/media/File:Kepler_laws_diagram.svg
"The two shaded sectors A1 and A2 have the same surface area and the time for planet 1 to cover segment A1 is equal to the time to cover segment A2."
Let's look at the S2 orbital cycle:
https://astro.swarthmore.edu/ir/ir_results.html
It seems to me that the surface aria that is locked between the SMBH to the arch of 2001.50 to 2002.25 (31 weeks) is significantly bigger than the surface aria that is locked between the SMBH to the arch of 2002.25 to 2002.58 (33 Weeks).
Could it be that it is due to general relativity as we see with the mercury motion:
One of the early confirmations of General Relativity was explaining the odd orbit of Mercury. Because the Sun creates gravity well and because Mercury is so close, there is less space in the region of Mercury’s orbit than expected from a Euclidean model.https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/tests-of-general-relativity/
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/tests-of-general-relativity/
In similar manner the space that S2 and the other orbiting stars are in diverges noticeably from Euclidean flat.
For information about S2 and General Relativity, try these.
Due to Einstein general relativity the perihelion point moves from one orbital cycle to the next one.
Therefore, if I understand it correctly, the real impact will take place on the next orbital cycle and the change is quite minor.
So how can we explain that significant difference in the aria surface for a similar given time.
In the same token:
The surface aria that is locked between the SMBH to the arch of 1992.23 to 1994.32 (two years +9 months) is bigger than the surface aria that is locked between the SMBH to the arch of 1994.32 to 1996.43 (two years +9 months).
I assume that in this case we can't blame that it is due to general relativity.
So, how can we explain those problems?
Could it be that S2 diagram itself is incorrect?
Could it be that S2 is under the impact of other gravity forces (and not only under the SMBH gravity)?
Please be aware that in the whole galaxy there are about 400 Billions stars. So why nearby gas clouds, millions nearby stars, Bar, Ring, spiral arms... of the galaxy couldn't set some gravity force on S2 orbital cycle?
What about dark matter?
Our scientists claim that it must be there at quite high density (as we go closer to the center). So why it has no impact on S2 orbital cycle? (Especially, If the real orbital cycle in 3D is much more than just 10 Light days).
Why don't use the dark matter for any S stars?
If I understand it correctly, the dark matter increases it density as we get closer to the SMBH, sets different densities based on the size of the spiral galaxy and has no negative impact on S stars or any other star or gas clouds in the center of the galaxy.
How could it be that we use the dark matter only when we need it?
Would you kindly also answer the following problem with S2?
We can see clearly that S2 is not always detected at the expected orbital path. It moves around it. In and out.So, do you agree that this is one more confirmation that the orbital cycle of S2 is not just effected by the SMBH gravity?
That shows that S2 does not orbit directly around the SMBH but it orbits around some massive object as BH or even MBH while they both move together and set the final orbital path of S2.
As an example, let's assume that we could shut down the light of the Earth.
So, from outside, you can only see the Sun and the Moon.
If you monitor the moon, you would see that it is moving in and out with regards to the expected orbital path around the Sun.
This proves that S2 is not there by itself. It must orbit around a massive object as BH or MBH while they both set the orbital path.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/08/2020 11:29:56
However, in this case, the real orbital cycle of S2 might be much bigger than the 2 x 10 Light days that we observe in 2D. So, how can we set any realistic calculation on S2 without understanding the real size of its orbital cycle?Because the important thing is the time it takes to get back to where it started, and that's not affected by the orientation of the orbital plane wrt our line of sight.
On the other hand...
Could it be that it is due to general relativity as we see with the mercury motion:It's because we are not looking at it from a viewpoint perpendicular to teh plane of the orbit.
We can see clearly that S2 is not always detected at the expected orbital path. It moves around it. In and out.We don't see that at all.
What do you think the crosses through the plotted positions are there for?
https://datavizcatalogue.com/methods/error_bars.html
Wouldn't it be better if you understood the diagram before you tried to say it was wrong?
So, do you agree that this is one more confirmation that the orbital cycle of S2 is not just effected by the SMBH gravity?No, it is evidence that you do not understand the subject.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/08/2020 16:12:26
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/07/2020 16:30:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 10:12:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/07/2020 13:53:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26
No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/08/2020 19:15:32
Are you sure about it?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 01/08/2020 05:28:11Because the important thing is the time it takes to get back to where it started, and that's not affected by the orientation of the orbital plane wrt our line of sight.
However, in this case, the real orbital cycle of S2 might be much bigger than the 2 x 10 Light days that we observe in 2D. So, how can we set any realistic calculation on S2 without understanding the real size of its orbital cycle?
Let's use Pluto as an example.
Assuming that we can only see the following orbital of Pluto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#/media/File:Plutoorbit1.5sideview.gif
Can we extract the mass of the Sun from this orbital cycle?
Assuming that we don't see the Sun.
Can we extract the correct location of the sun from this orbital shape and calculate the real Sun mass?
As I have pointed out before, you continue to combine the outer radius of the cold gas cloud and speed of the inner radius of the accretion disc. Your math is wrong. You are using the wrong numbers.
Well, S2 is clearly not good enough.
"It's estimated up to 85 percent of all stars could be in binary pairs, or even triple or quadruple systems; and over 50 percent of all Sun-like stars are in binary pairs."
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-may-have-found-our-sun-s-long-lost-identical-twin-star
Even the sun has a twin:
"It's thought that somewhere out there, the Sun has a twin - born not just in the same stellar nursery, but an almost identical twin, a binary companion made of the same star-stuff. And astronomers think they might have just found it.
Located roughly 184 light-years away, it's called HD 186302, and it's almost certainly at least a long-lost sibling of our home star.
So, why are we so sure that none of the S stars have no companion star or even companion BH?
So, S2 is not good enough for the estimation of the SMBH mass due to the following:
1. Do we know the real orbital cycle of S2 in 3D?
2. Do we know how many other companion stars it might have?
3. Do we know the impact of the millions of nearby stars or even the billions in the galaxy?
4. Do we know the impact of the Dark matter on S2
Therefore, it is quite clear to me that it should be much more accurate to extract the real mass of the SMBH from the accretion disc due to the following arguments:
1. The accretion disc clearly orbits in almost a pure circular orbital cycle around the SMBH.
2. It is located very nearby the SMBH and therefore it isn't affected by dark matter or any other real matter as stars or gas clouds.
I fully agree with you that it is affected by the magnetic field or heat that could add some friction.
However that friction can't slow down the plasma accretion orbital velocity.
If that was the case, than all the plasma in the accretion disc had to fall immediately into the SMBH
As the plasma still orbits around the SMBH, it proves that the plasma orbits at the "magic velocity" that is needed to keep it in the orbital loop..
Based on Newton formula I have found that the total mass should be 75 M sun mass.
However, if you consider that Newton formula is not applicable to that ultra high velocity of 0.3c, than please use Einstein formula.
Please estimate the orbital velocity at the correct radius, add the impact of the magnetic field/heat/friction and set the calculation for the SMBH mass based on this accretion disc valid data..
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2020 19:54:32
You keep forgetting to answer thisQuote from: Bored chemist on 28/07/2020 16:30:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 10:12:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/07/2020 13:53:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26
No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?
Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/08/2020 17:15:33
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."Do you claim that there is no need Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas as density wave to justify the BBT and the activity of the spiral galaxies in the Universe?
It wasn't true.
Let's focus on dark matter:
https://www.businessinsider.com/less-dark-matter-in-milky-way-2014-10
The team found the dark matter in our galaxy weighs 800 billion times the mass of the Sun, half of previous estimates.
"Rubin found that galaxies rotated nothing like our own Solar System. The outer stars did not rotate slower than the inner stars, but just as fast. There had to be dark matter on the outskirts of every galaxy.
Now, astronomer Prajwal Kafle, from The University of Western Australia, and his colleagues have once again observed the speed of stars on the outskirts of our own galaxy, the Milky Way. But he did so in much greater detail than previous estimates.
From a star's speed, it's relatively simple to calculate any interior mass. The simple equation below shows that the interior mass (M) is equal to the distance the star is from the galactic center (R) times its velocity (V) squared, all divided by the gravitational constant (G):
M = R * V^2 / G"
So, our scientists have no basic clue how spiral galaxy really works.
They hope that somehow the dark matter will help to fulfill the requested Newton Formula,
They also hope that stars are migrating from outside just to be eaten by the SMBH.
As they can't explain the orbital velocity of the stars in the spiral arm, they have called the dark matter for some help.
So dear scientists
You have a fatal error in your understanding.
Stars do no migrate from outside inwards. This is a pure imagination.
Stars in spiral arms can't migrate inwards. Never ever!!!
Actually, nothing can migrate into the Milky Way while it crosses the open space at almost 600 Km/s.
Any star/ globular cluster or galaxy (that is not connected to the MW) must be shifted away and clear the path for our mighty galaxy.
All the stars and dwarf galaxies that we see around the MW galaxy are direct products of the galaxy itself.
Therefore, NOTHING from outside could come closer to the galactic disc plane.
Let's look at the SPIRAL arm.
The local gravity of the spiral arm holdes it in place.
However, all the stars in the arms MUST be drifted outwards over time.
That outwards drift keeps the constant (or almost constant) orbital velocity of the stars at almost any radius - as long as they are at the galactic disc.
At the ring (the starting point of the spiral arm - 3KPC) the thickness of the arm is about 3,000Ly.
While at the outer side of the arm (10-15KPC) the thickness of the arm is 400Ly.
So, that by itself proves that our Sun doesn't orbit around the center of the galaxy as our scientists wish.
If that was the case, than as you move outwards, the chance to move above and below the orbital disc is higher.
Please look at the orbital path of Pluto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#/media/File:Animation_of_Pluto_orbit.gif
Therefore, the following formula for the total requested mass at the center is clearly none realistic:
M = R * V^2 / G
I can tell you by 100% that you won't find even one star that try to penetrate into the Milky Way or even back to the galactic disc. Never ever!
Our scientists also hope that the MW galaxy increases its mass due to a collision with other massive galaxy.
That is also pure imagination.
When Andromeda will come closer to the MW, the Bigger must be the winner.
So, the Milky Way would probably clear the way the mighty Andromeda.
If not, the collision would set a severe impact at both galaxies.
Andromeda would survive, but the Milky Way would probably lose some portions of the arms if not all the arms.
Those broken arms would be ejected into the open space including the MW SMBH.
Andromeda won't take even one star or moon from the Milky way.
So, they would never ever integrate with each other. Eventually, each one of those galaxies will continue to cross the space but with less stars on board.
The only way for galaxies to gain mass is by creating new mass and new stars.
S stars (including S2) are close to the SMBH as they all are new born stars.
S2 had been created from the molecular that had been created and ejected from the accretion disc.
Once upon a time, when the solar system were very young, it was there orbiting around the center as S2 does.
One day, our sun will be ejected from the Orion arm to the open space.
That would be a very tough time for us.
In any case, based on the current BBT theory, without the unproved dark matter you can't explain the orbital rotation velocity of the stars at the spiral arms.
While based on theory D there is no need for dark matter or density wave hypothetical idea.
Local Newton gravity at the spiral arms is good enough for that job.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2020 17:58:20
Do you claim that there is no need Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas as density wave to justify the BBT and the activity of the spiral galaxies in the Universe?What I'm saying is quite simple.
The BBT was invented before ideas like Dark matter.
So it's clear that a BBT without those things is not only possible , but it existed.
So, when you say that a BBT needs those things it is clear that you are not telling the truth.
So I'm asking you why you think it's helpful to say things that you know are not true.
I didn't read the rest of your post because it can't alter the fact that LeMaitre drafted the theory in 1927, but the missing matter wasn't noticed until 1933.
For (at least) the intervening years, the BBT existed without dark matter etc.
Did you include anything important in that gish gallop?
If so, please either repeat it, or delete the spurious dross from your earlier post so I can find the useful bit.
Thanks
Post by: Malamute Lover on 07/08/2020 04:19:31
Based on Newton formula I have found that the total mass should be 75 M sun mass.
I already pointed out to you that you are using the radius of the very large cold gas halo and assigning it the estimated speed of the inner edge of the accretion disk, which is much higher than the outer edge of the halo. This is why your calculation of the mass is way off. And this is why I am not bothering with this thread anymore. You are not listening to anyone but yourself.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/08/2020 16:03:44
I already pointed out to you that you are using the radius of the very large cold gas halo and assigning it the estimated speed of the inner edge of the accretion disk, which is much higher than the outer edge of the halo. This is why your calculation of the mass is way off. And this is why I am not bothering with this thread anymore. You are not listening to anyone but yourself.
I have high appreciation for your knowledge and support.
However, why do you claim that there is a cold gas cloud in the accretion ring?
The accretion disc is actually a ring and it is full with hot plasma.
You have stated that the plasma temp is 10^7K while I do recall that it was stated 10^9K. I'm sure that Halc can justify that understanding as we had long discussion about it.
So, how that hot plasma (of 10^7 or 10^9K) could be considered as cold gas cloud?.
The plasma is there between the most inwards to the most outwards radius of the accretion disc/ring.
We are located at the same plane of that disc/ring.
Therefore, how can we measure the orbital velocity of the most inwards accretion radius? How can we see it while we are located at the same plane?
Hence, don't you agree that if we can measure the orbital velocity of the plasma, it must be related to the outer ring of the accretion ring?
In any case, I would mostly appreciate if you can offer a valid article that can justify your understanding.
With regards to your following message, which I have found in other thread:
As I said earlier, if the universe were in fact contracting at the same rate it is now expanding, there would be no change in how stars act. Mass-energy would still be positive, the physics of fusion would still be the same. The expansion of the universe is irrelevant.How do we know that the Universe is expanding?
Is there any frame in the space?
All we see are galaxies. We all agree that those galaxies are expanding away from us..
However, how the expansion of the galaxies (especially the far end galaxies) could be used as a valid prove that the space itself in our universe is really expanding?
The BBT sets the linkage between the expansions of galaxies to the expansion in space.
However, don't you agree that theoretically, we can offer other idea for the expansion in the galaxies rather than just expansion in space?.
Few weeks ago I have read your tread.
If I recall it correctly, you have stated that there is a problem with the BBT. Is it correct? if so, would you kindly explain what is the problem with the BBT as you see it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2020 23:07:14
You can not explain where the first black hole came from, and you can not explain how the Universe came into being.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13
It does not matter.Yes, I have already given the answer.
You can not explain where the first black hole came from, and you can not explain how the Universe came into being.
Based on the BBT a bang that took place 13.8 BY ago had set the base for the whole energy and matter in our observable universe.
If you like the BBT, than you actually agree that a bang could create energy/mass that is needed for the Billions over Billions galaxies in our observable Universe. In each galaxy there is a SMBH and Billions of stars. Just in the core of the Milky Way our scientists have found more than 10,000 BH. The mass in a star is equivalent to the mass in a BH. So in total the BBT had created almost out of nothing equivalent mass/energy for Billions over billions over billions over... BH mass/energy.
Therefore, in the BBT the bang is needed for the whole energy/mass in the observable universe including all the Galaxies, SMBH, MBH, BH, Stars planets moons... Billions over billions over...., while in theory D the bang is needed just for the first BH.
Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?
Actually, if there was a bang, any sort of bang, and something had been created out of nothing at a singularity point than this singularity must be converted immediately to a BH or a SS...SMBH.
Our scientists claim that the size of the Universe after the inflation was 10,000Ly.
So, let's try to set the whole mass in the observable Universe in that limited size.
Billions over Billions massive galaxies in the size of 1/10 than the size of the Milky way.
What would be the outcome?
Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?
So, how can you even dream that the matter/energy of the whole observable Universe could escape from that compact size?
Therefore, for the starting activity, theory D is much more realistic/superior theory over the BBT.
The chance that a bang (even if we call it big bang) could create so much energy for the whole mass in the Universe out of nothing and against the thermodynamics laws is virtually zero.
Even if you believe in that unrealistic idea, the chance that something could escape after the inflation against Newton Gravity law at that 10,000Ly compact size is also virtually zero.
In theory D, all we ask is just a single BH out of a bang.
So, how could you prefer the BBT over Theory D for that starting point?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/08/2020 12:19:04
Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?Partly because we actually know how black holes are formed.
Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?No because of inflation.
But the real problem is that your idea doesn't work.
If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.
It would evaporate.
It would emit particles- mainly photons which would radiate off into the distance, never to be seen again.
It would also produce a few particles of matter.
But almost all those particles too would have one of two fates they would fall back in, or they would, like the photons, diffuse away into the vacuum.
There would be a few particles which ended up in orbit- initially- but the stream of photons would, eventually push them away too.
Eventually the black hole would evaporate entirely and leave nothing but a few dregs
So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.
But your biggest failing isn't that you didn't realise this.
No, your most serious fault is that you didn't accept this when I pointed it out earlier.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/08/2020 03:09:23
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13Partly because we actually know how black holes are formed.
Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?
So you claim that because you know how the BH is formed than in one theory (let's call it theory B or BBT) a mass which is equivalent to Billions Over Billons Over... BH could be create in a single bang and out of nothing, while in other theory (let's call it theory D) it is absolutely impossible to get even a single BH in a bang.
Is it real?
What do you know about the BH that could support this unrealistic idea?
Based on our scientists, after the inflation the size of the universe was only 10,000LY.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13No because of inflation.
Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?
So how could it be that by placing the whole mass/energy of the observable Universe including all the Millions over Billions massive galaxies at the size of 1/10 the Milky Way Newton gravity wouldn't force them all to fall in into a SS...SMBH?
What Newton would say about it?
If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.So, how can you explain the Billion over billions Supper massive BH in our Universe?
It would evaporate.
How could it be that so many BHs that have to be evaporated, could surprisingly increase their mass so dramatically and became SMBHs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2020 08:37:05
So, how can you explain the Billion over billions Supper massive BH in our Universe?Gravity and hydrogen
For better or worse you seem to have commented on much of what I said.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13Partly because we actually know how black holes are formed.
Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?
So you claim that because you know how the BH is formed than in one theory (let's call it theory B or BBT) a mass which is equivalent to Billions Over Billons Over... BH could be create in a single bang and out of nothing, while in other theory (let's call it theory D) it is absolutely impossible to get even a single BH in a bang.
Is it real?
What do you know about the BH that could support this unrealistic idea?Based on our scientists, after the inflation the size of the universe was only 10,000LY.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13No because of inflation.
Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?
So how could it be that by placing the whole mass/energy of the observable Universe including all the Millions over Billions massive galaxies at the size of 1/10 the Milky Way Newton gravity wouldn't force them all to fall in into a SS...SMBH?
What Newton would say about it?If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.So, how can you explain the Billion over billions Supper massive BH in our Universe?
It would evaporate.
How could it be that so many BHs that have to be evaporated, could surprisingly increase their mass so dramatically and became SMBHs?
You missed a bit.
.
But the real problem is that your idea doesn't work.
...
So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.
You need to address that.
One BH doesn't make a Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/08/2020 14:48:49
You need to address that.Yes it is.
One BH doesn't make a Universe
As an example let's use the evolvement of life on Earth.
Do you agree that based on Darwin theory all the variety of life had been evolved from just one cell of life as Ameba?
However, that cell of life must have the ability to create other cell of life.
In the same token, a BH which should be considered as a "living" cell of mass as it has the ability to create new mass.
In the core of the Miky Way galaxy, our scientists have found more that 10K BHs.
Those BH's didn't migrate inwards just because they wish to be eaten by the SMBH.
They are there as each one of them is a new born baby BH of the SMBH.
All of them are migrating away from the SMBH.
Over time they will increase their mass. Not by eating anything, but by the ability to create new particles.
If you accept Darwin theory for the evolvement of life, you should accept theory D as the best theory for the evolvement of galaxies in our Universe.
One cell of life in the whole planet V.S one "living" cell of mass (BH or MBH) in the whole Universe.
In any case, what is the chance that all the energy/mass of the whole observable Universe could be created in a bang out of nothing?
Don't you agree that the chance to create equivalent energy/mass of just one BH in a bang out of nothing is Billion over billion over.. Billion higher than the chance to create equivalent energy/mass of Billion over billion over...billion BHs?
So, do you agree that the creation of a single BH in a bang by theory D is much more realistic than the idea of creating all the energy/mass of our universe in a bang out of nothing?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2020 17:43:04
As an example let's use the evolvement of life on Earth.No, because that's silly.
If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.
It would evaporate.
It would emit particles- mainly photons which would radiate off into the distance, never to be seen again.
It would also produce a few particles of matter.
But almost all those particles too would have one of two fates they would fall back in, or they would, like the photons, diffuse away into the vacuum.
There would be a few particles which ended up in orbit- initially- but the stream of photons would, eventually push them away too.
Eventually the black hole would evaporate entirely and leave nothing but a few dregs
So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.
Show,- using physics, rather than wishful thinking- how I'm wrong about what would happen to as single black hole on its own in an empty void.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2020 17:44:53
In the same token, a BH which should be considered as a "living" cell of mass as it has the ability to create new mass.Two problems.
It has not got the ability to do that. Sadly you don't have the ability to understand the conservation of energy.
And, if it did, it wouldn't help, because it wouldn't create a universe like this one- see above
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/08/2020 20:04:16
It has not got the ability to do that. Sadly you don't have the ability to understand the conservation of energy.Well, I have already gave the answer for the conservation of energy for the particle creation process.
The energy for the new created particle pair (Both with positive mass but with opposite polarity) is transformed by the electromagnetic field of the BH/SMBH.
However, their velocity is given for free by the Newton gravity force.
Therefore, this velocity is the added kinetic energy which drives the whole Universe.
Hence, this added kinetic energy is the ultimate answer for the energy conservation in theory D.
Due to Lorentz force, as one partial is directed inwards and fall into the SMBH, the other opposite polarity particle is ejected outwards directly into the accretion ring.
So, I show a clear answer for your question. You might accept it or reject it. But it is there and it is very logical.
However, we all agree that our scientists don't have any idea what is the energy conservation for the BBT (correct or incorrect).
So, how could it be that you race the flag of the conservation of energy in one hand against theory D, while on the other hand you completely ignore it when it comes to the BBT?
Can you please explain the source of energy for the Big Bang?
Please explain how the conservation of energy works at the BBT?
How the energy/mass for millions over billions massive galaxies had been created out of nothing?
If you can't explain it in the theory that you like, how could you ask about it when it comes to other theory?
So let's agree.
Even if you don't like my explanation about the real impact of Newton gravity, as long as you can't answer for the source of energy at the Big bang and how the conservation of energy works there, than you can't reject other theory based on this law.
One law for any theory.
As our scientists gave a waiver for this law when it comes to the BBT, than it is an obligation to give the same waiver to any theory!!!
If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.As I have already explained:
It would evaporate.
It would emit particles- mainly photons which would radiate off into the distance, never to be seen again.
It would also produce a few particles of matter.
But almost all those particles too would have one of two fates they would fall back in, or they would, like the photons, diffuse away into the vacuum.
There would be a few particles which ended up in orbit- initially- but the stream of photons would, eventually push them away too.
Eventually the black hole would evaporate entirely and leave nothing but a few dregs
So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.
There are only positive particles in our Universe!!!
The idea of Negative mass is a pure fiction that had been invented by Hawking. If it is there, than please prove it. If you can't do so, than let's agree that it is a speculation idea.
So, without negative mass there is no way to evaporate the mass of the BH/SMBH.
As one particle is falling in, the BH/SMBH is increasing their mass over time.
The other particle is ejected outwards and used as a new matter in our observable Universe.
So the SMBH are increasing its mass without any need to eat any star or gas cloud from out side.
Therefore, our scientists claim that the SMBH is a picky eater.
Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
It is just a wishful hope by our scientists.
The SMBH is not a picky eater as it is stated: "Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater"
Have you ever seen a picky eater elephant?
Sorry, the SMBH is an excellent Eater. It won't give up even on a single particle. However, Due to the nature of mass creation, for any created particle pair it can only eat one.
Therefore, the other one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc due to Lorentz force
It's amazing that our scientists don't see any in falling matter, but they are positively sure that it must eat something from outside.
"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the in falling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon"
They claim for 99% from the in falling matter is ejected outwards. So, we might think that all the mater in the accretion disc is there due to in falling matter and at least 1% is falling in from the accretion to the SMBH.
This is misleading information, as NOTHING is drifted inwards to the accretion disc.
The ultra high SMBH's magnetic field would prevent from any particle or atom to fall into the accretion disc.
If something from outside will dare to come closer to the accretion disc, it will be boosted upwards/downwards at 0.8c to the molecular jet stream.
Actually, do we really see anything that falls in?
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/430/1/60/983995
"Measured outflow velocities span a continuous range from <1500 km s−1 up to ∼100 000 km s−1, with mean and median values of ∼0.1 c and ∼0.056 c, respectively."
In this articled they have only found real observation for outflow. There are over than 100 words of "outflow" and not even a single word about inflow or inwards. As we hope that the SMBH eats food from outside, why can't we see it?
In the article they claim that they have difficulties to see it.
However, they clearly see an outflow.
Hence, as long as they only see outflow, than there is no inflow.
As there is only outflow it proves that the SMBH is used as mass creation with or without the conservation law.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2020 21:46:58
However, their velocity is given for free by the Newton gravity force.Anywhere near a black hole, the big component of that force is going to be towards it.
So they will get a velocity- in the wrong direction.
So let's agree.I'm hardly going to agree with something that is plainly wrong.
Even if you don't like my explanation about the real impact of Newton gravity, as long as you can't answer for the source of energy at the Big bang and how the conservation of energy works there, than you can't reject other theory based on this law.
The BBT more or less depends on the idea that the energy came from outside.
ONE TIME ONLY.
Whereas you are expecting it to happen all the time- but only where you want it to.
That's the sort of special pleading that you might as well call "God", and be done with it.
Well, I have already gave the answer for the conservation of energy for the particle creation process.No, because, as others have pointed out, your "explanation" doesn't work.
Therefore, our scientists claim that the SMBH is a picky eater.Well, it actually says "If there’s one thing nearly everybody knows about a black hole, it’s that they voraciously gobble up anything and everything that drifts nearby. It’s not true, of course, since they’re powered by nothing more mysterious than gravity, so plenty material falling inwards manages to miss the black hole and gets sling-shotted back into space." which is true.
Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater
Trying to pretend that a journalistic headline is a scientific principle is a bit silly.
As I have already explained:You didn't "explain" that , you just kept repeating it in the hope that it was true.
There are only positive particles in our Universe!!!
But you keep missing the big picture.
Even if you were right, you would still be wrong.
If there was a single black hole, it wouldn't produce a universe like ours.
It's amazing that our scientists don't see any in falling matter,Not really.
The thing about stuff that's falling in to a black hole is that it disappears into a black hole. So it's no longer there to see.
Of course, what they do see is stuff that's in orbit around it.
And the cool thing about an orbit is that it's what you get when something "falls in", but misses.
So, all the stuff in orbit is, in fact, falling in.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/08/2020 06:21:05
The BBT more or less depends on the idea that the energy came from outside.So you claim that The BBT depends on the idea that the energy came from outside ONE TIME ONLY.
ONE TIME ONLY.
Whereas you are expecting it to happen all the time- but only where you want it to.
That's the sort of special pleading that you might as well call "God", and be done with it.
In other words, you bypass the conservation of energy only one time.
However, to justify that bypass you call for some help from God.
Therefore, you claim that God had delivered the total requested energy for the Big Bang that took place 13.8By ago in ONLY ONE TIME and then left us alone.
If God was there 13.8 By ago and contribute the requested energy to the Big Bang, why he can't be with us today and at any time after that bang and contribute the requested Kinetic energy that is needed for any new created particles?
How could it be that you are limiting the power of God for ONLY ONE TIME activity in the Universe and prevent its support for the constant activity of the Universe?
Sorry, I really can't agree with this approach.
As God was there 13.8 By ago, he also must be with us today and at any given moment.
Therefore, you can't limit its power for Just ONE TIME activity.
I wonder what might be the response from the Vatican for this limitation in God power.
In any case, the same OUTSIDE power that could deliver the Ultra requested energy (Infinite/almost infinite) for the BBT out of nothing, can also deliver the very limited (or almost neglected) kinetic energy that is needed for the process of the new particle pair creation at any given moment.
We must agree for One law and One God at any given moment for any given theory.
And the cool thing about an orbit is that it's what you get when something "falls in", but misses.This is your biggest Mistake!!!
So, all the stuff in orbit is, in fact, falling in.
There is no possibility for falling in object to increase its ORBITAL velocity while it decreases the eccentricity of the orbital path (in order to set a circular orbit).
This is a pure fantasy.
The accretion disc for example is almost a pure circular orbit. The particle/plasma orbits at almost 0.3c while any nearby star orbit at the much lower velocity.
It takes S2 almost 16 years to set only one elliptical cycle of 2 x 10 Light days.
Therefore, even if S2 will come closer to the SMBH it might increase its orbital velocity near the focal point, but its eccentricity should increase. Therefore, it could be for example 1 x 20 Light days. In any case, it would never decrease the eccentricity while increasing the orbital velocity.
Objects can increase their velocity near the focal point only if they increase the eccentricity of the orbit.
Please look at the elliptic Kepler orbit with an eccentricity of 0.7 in the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit#/media/File:Kepler_orbits.svg
We can incease its orbital velocity near the focal point by decreasing its distance to that point.
However, in order to acheave this gool we must increase the eccentricity of the orbital object.
In other words, there is no way to increase the maximal orbital velocity without increasing the eccentricity (assuming that we are not using external rocket to boost our velocity).
Well, it actually says "If there’s one thing nearly everybody knows about a black hole, it’s that they voraciously gobble up anything and everything that drifts nearby. It’s not true, of course, since they’re powered by nothing more mysterious than gravity, so plenty material falling inwards manages to miss the black hole and gets sling-shotted back into space." which is true.Yes, I fully agree with your explanation.
However disagree with the following:
Trying to pretend that a journalistic headline is a scientific principle is a bit silly.We can't use one error in order to disqualify the whole articale
But you keep missing the big picture.Well, once we agree that the same law and the same God is applicable for theory D as for theory B, than we all must agree that new energy (Only Kinetic energy) is added to the system (from OUTSIDE) by the creation of new particle pair process.
Even if you were right, you would still be wrong.
Once we cross this issue, we actually set the base for our wonderful Universe that had been evolved from a single BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2020 12:24:25
However, to justify that bypass you call for some help from God.No, I didn't.
Try reading what I said.
I said that a one time event- more likely a crash of 'branes than- God is plausible.
But that your system needs energy to be added to the system, in contravention of physics, but exactly in a specific place- the outskirts of a black hole, and all the time- but in an apparently controlled way, across the entire universe.
Now that sort of special pleading needs a God.
Do you understand the difference?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2020 12:28:22
This is your biggest Mistake!!!The fantasy is on your part.
There is no possibility for falling in object to increase its ORBITAL velocity while it decreases the eccentricity of the orbital path (in order to set a circular orbit).
This is a pure fantasy.
I never said this bit- you made it up.
" falling in object to increase its ORBITAL velocity while it decreases the eccentricity of the orbital path (in order to set a circular orbit)."
I just reminded you that things fall into black holes rather than falling out of them.
Please don't try that sort of straw man attack again; it makes you look silly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2020 12:33:33
We can't use one error in order to disqualify the whole articaleI didn't even try to discount the article, I cited part of it.
But, let's see what you said "Therefore, our scientists claim that the SMBH is a picky eater.
Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
It is just a wishful hope by our scientists."
Now, did the scientists actually say it's a picky eater?
No.
So is it wishful hope on their part?
No, it isn't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2020 12:34:40
Well, once we agree that the same law and the same God is applicable for theory D as for theory B, ...We are not going to agree on that - because it is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/08/2020 21:23:10
I said that a one time event- more likely a crash of 'branes than- God is plausible.
The BBT more or less depends on the idea that the energy came from outside.Ok.
ONE TIME ONLY.
Please let me know if now I understand it correctly:
From now on you don't claim that the energy of the observable universe had been created out of nothing as that concept clearly contradicts the conservation of energy law.
Instead of that, the new approach is that the energy came from outside the Universe.
Therefore, the requested energy was actually waiting outside our universe and exactly 13.8 By ago it had been transformed into our new born Universe.
In this case, there is no requirement for energy out of nothing and therefore, it fully obey the conservation of energy law.
If that is the case, let me ask few questions:
1. What is the meaning of outside? Do you agree that before the Big bang there was no universe?
In the following article it is stated:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-of-the-universe/
"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom."
So, it is quite clear that before the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence there was no Universe at all.
Therefore, how any sort of energy could be transformed from outside that doesn't exist to inside that also doesn't exist?
Hence, as there is no Universe (inside or outside) and no space for both, what is the real meaning of outside? Outside of what?
2. Now let's assume that there was energy outside. That energy must be located in some sort of space and location. In other words, do you agree that it must be located in a Universe that can be called Outside Universe?
3. If so, why that Universe didn't use its energy to create there stars and galaxies? What could be the reason for him to transformed its energy to our none existence Universe?
4. How the energy had been transformed from the outside Universe to the inside Universe? Please explain the energy transformation process between both locations. Do we know if all the energy of the outside universe had been transformed or just some of the energy?
5. Do you agree that sometime in the past (if you wish - at the infinity time) there was no Universe and no energy, not inside, not outside, not above the inside and not below the outside? So, there was a time that there was virtually no energy at all. Hence, don't you agree that somehow we need to understand how the infinite or almost infinite energy that was requested to our universe had been created outside out of nothing?
6. why do you insist for ONE TIME ONLY?
Conclusion:
Somehow, the energy which is needed to our universe must be created somewhere.
The BBT doesn't offer any realistic process of creating that requested energy.
Transformation by itself isn't good enough. Therefore, the missing element of creation energy in the BBT shows that this theory is not complete and therefore not realistic, especially while you can't even claim where is the location of that outside and how/why this transformation process really work?
In theory D there is a clear explanation for the source of new energy.
That new energy is due to the kinetic energy of the new created particle.
Malamute had already confirmed that gravity has an energy
Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.That energy is added to the new created particles as new Kinetic energy. It is not part of the creation of negative/positive particles process. In other words, the kinetic energy of the new particles doesn't affect the total energy of the positive/negative pair energy . As the kinetic energy is always positive (even for the negative particles), than the outcome is that the kinetic energy of the new particle pair is actually for free.
Malamute had stated that:
Since the negative energy particle tunnels through the event horizon courtesy of quantum uncertainty, there is no falling involved. The negative energy (negative frequency) of a photon that goes through the black hole accounts for the existence of a real photon outside. In the case of photons, the speed is always lightspeed. Negative mass-energy particles with non-zero negative mass tunneling through the event horizon can account for the existence of a real positive mass-energy particle with positive mass outside. But it does not provide them with kinetic energy.
Energy as a real quantity is not dependent on position. Potential energy and kinetic energy are observer dependent and can change values or even vanish in different reference frames.So, the only solution is that the kinetic energy is there due to the gravity energy and not to any sort of energy transformation by the positive/negative particles creation process.
As the gravity is for free, than the kinetic energy due to gravity is also for free.
Even if you don't like this explanation, at least there is an integrated explanation in theory D how new energy could be created.
The idea to bypass this key issue with energy transformation is just not good enough.
Therefore, without clear explanation for that key element, any theory (including the BBT) is just irrelevant.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2020 22:18:49
The BBT doesn't offer any realistic process of creating that requested energy.It never claimed to.
So, you just wasted a page or so saying it doesn't.
We know that.
There's some speculation about how it happened, but that's a different issue.
In theory D there is a clear explanation for the source of new energy.It's clear that it does not work, or at least, that if it works it does so by an ongoing breach of the known laws of physics happening all the time, in specific places and in a very carefully controlled way. Which is really lucky, isn't it?
And it still doesn't give you a universe that looks like this one.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/08/2020 03:59:42
Sorry, it isn't a different issue, it is the MOST IMPORTNANT issue!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:23:10It never claimed to.
The BBT doesn't offer any realistic process of creating that requested energy.
So, you just wasted a page or so saying it doesn't.
We know that.
There's some speculation about how it happened, but that's a different issue.
If you know how the energy for the BBT had been created and delivered/transformed to the Big Bang, then why do you keep it under cover?
Why don't you introduce your speculations?
Without a clear understanding how the energy had been created, any theory is none relevant (even if you call it the BBT).
The energy for any activity is more important than the activity itself!!!
Life on earth wouldn't be evolved without energy source from the Sun.
No one is going to develop an airplane, ship, truck or even a Bimba without clear understanding what kind of energy must be used and how to use that energy.
You can't just bypass this key issue by mumbling something about OUTSIDE energy or some speculations.
You couldn't even answer one of the following questions:
1...Hence, as there is no Universe (inside or outside) and no space for both, what is the real meaning of outside? Outside of what?I really can't understand how any person which consider himself as a scientist can support a theory without a clear understanding for the creation of energy!
2. Now let's assume that there was energy outside. That energy must be located in some sort of space and location. In other words, do you agree that it must be located in a Universe that can be called Outside Universe?
3. If so, why that Universe didn't use its energy to create there stars and galaxies? What could be the reason for him to transformed its energy to our none existence Universe?
4. How the energy had been transformed from the outside Universe to the inside Universe? Please explain the energy transformation process between both locations. Do we know if all the energy of the outside universe had been transformed or just some of the energy?
5. Do you agree that sometime in the past (if you wish - at the infinity time) there was no Universe and no energy, not inside, not outside, not above the inside and not below the outside? So, there was a time that there was virtually no energy at all. Hence, don't you agree that somehow we need to understand how the infinite or almost infinite energy that was requested to our universe had been created outside out of nothing?
6. why do you insist for ONE TIME ONLY?
This is not a real science.
It is a speculated science!
Theory D doesn't breach any known laws of physics at any given moment!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:23:10It's clear that it does not work, or at least, that if it works it does so by an ongoing breach of the known laws of physics happening all the time, in specific places and in a very carefully controlled way. Which is really lucky, isn't it?
In theory D there is a clear explanation for the source of new energy.
Based on Malamute explanation, it should work.
Somehow you refuse to understand the real meaning of gravity energy.
It is quite clear that you are going to reject any idea/theory which contradicts the BBT.
You don't care about Gravity energy or the supporting message from Malamute.
However, as long as you keep the BBT speculation about the creation of energy under cover, than we all should also keep the BBT under cover.
Theory D is the Only valid theory which at least offer a clear solution for the new energy creation process.
Therefore, theory D is much superior theory over the BBT.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/08/2020 05:36:59
Theory D doesn't breach any known laws of physics at any given moment!
Theory D is the Only valid theory which at least offer a clear solution for the new energy creation process.
This isn't going to stop being a contradiction just because you keep asserting it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/08/2020 06:42:44
This isn't going to stop being a contradiction just because you keep asserting it.Sorry
There is a clear contradiction in the BBT.
That theory is based on the idea of space expansion.
It is stated the space of the Universe after 10^-43 seconds of its existence, was less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-of-the-universe/
"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom."
Therefore, it is clear that before the bang there was no space and no universe.
In this case, how the energy could come from outside while there is no inside and no outside?
Therefore, based on the BBT, there is no meaning to claim that the Energy should come from outside.
If there is outside, it is our scientists obligation to show how it had been created there and how it had been transformed from the none existence outside Universe to the None existence inside universe.
You don't need to be a scientist in order to understand that without the relevant energy for the whole observable Universe, there is no existence for the BBT.
Therefore, you have two options to overcome this key issue:
1. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.
2. The energy for the BBT had been created outside - so please explain your speculation for outside, inside, energy creation and transformation process.
Without it, the BBT is useless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2020 08:39:56
This is not a real science.OK guys, do we draw lots or something? Someone has to do it.
It is a speculated science!
It's clearly going to upset him and, to be honest, I'm not much of a diplomat- .
Oh sod it. I can't be bothered trying to break it to him gently.
Dave,
ALL SCIENCE IS SPECULATIVE.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2020 08:43:57
Without it, the BBT is useless.Without something equally "outside of the universe" to create the first black hole, your so-called theory is equally useless.
Also unlike the BB, your idea needs an ongoing "outside the universe" source of energy, carefully controlled in both time and space.
How likely is that?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/08/2020 17:21:51
Sorry
There is a clear contradiction in the BBT.
Even if that was the case (it isn't, though), that doesn't magically make the contradiction in your own model go away, now does it?
1. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.
That actually isn't the case. Conservation of energy is based on time symmetry. If time started at the Big Bang, then there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. If that's so, then the Universe never had zero energy and therefore never went from a state of zero energy to a state of a large amount of energy. So conservation of energy was not broken at the Big Bang.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/08/2020 19:51:42
Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:42:44
1. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.
That actually isn't the case. Conservation of energy is based on time symmetry. If time started at the Big Bang, then there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. If that's so, then the Universe never had zero energy and therefore never went from a state of zero energy to a state of a large amount of energy. So conservation of energy was not broken at the Big Bang.
If time started at the Big Bang, then there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.Do you consider that only the Big bang could start the time?
What about small bang?
If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?
Sorry, the time had started from the first moment of creating any sort of energy in our universe.
The big bang has no control on the time.
Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?
Therefore, if there was energy before the bang, than the time was already ticking before the bang.
The time had started from the first moment that something (in could be energy/dark energy/matter/dark matter.. had been created in the Universe. Even One particle in the entire universe should start the time of the Universe.
Therefore, there must be a starting point of time when the energy in our universe was virtually ZERO!
That time could take place 14 By ago, 10^1,000,....0 years ago or infinite time ago.
Hence, we can't just start the time at the BBT while the requested energy for that bang was already there..
This is a pure fiction.
Somehow, energy had to be created in the Universe from zero.
If we claim that there is no "before" the Big bang, than we all must agree that there is also no energy "before" the Bang.
If there was energy "before" the bang than it is our obligation to show how that energy which is needed for the Big Bang had been created and how long it took it to accumulate to such high energy.
Conservation of energy is based on time symmetry.Conservation of energy is based on the idea of energy conservation.
In other words, we can't assume that the energy of the whole Universe would be there just because we need it for the BBT and we can achieve it by setting some manipulation in the time.
Sorry, we must show how that requested energy for the Big bang had been created out of nothing as once upon a time the energy in our universe was clearly Zero.
However, do we have any sort of estimation what is the energy that was needed for the Big bang?
Let's try to answer on the following questions:
How many equivalent Sum mass there is just in the real matter of our observable Universe?
How much equivalent sun mass there is in the dark matter and dark energy?
What was the efficiency of the energy to mass transformation process based on the BBT
How much energy our galaxy is losing per second or year?
Did we try to estimate the total energy lost for the whole observable Universe in 13.8 BY.
Do we have any idea how much energy the Universe had lost due to the big bang and after the Bang till this moment?
So what is the total energy that was needed for the Big bang?
Is it one million of billion Sun mass or more than one Billion over Billion over... Sun mass?
That number is very important.
You can't just claim that the energy was there.
It is our obligation to find the real amount of energy that was needed for the Big bang!!!
After that, we have to ask if that total energy could come in a special delivery to the BBT and almost from nothing
Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/08/2020 20:32:36
Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?
I'm not. Take note how I said "if" the Big Bang was the beginning of time.
If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?
It could have, but what evidence is there for any such "small" bang?
Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?
Which may very well have been at the Big Bang. We don't know of anything that came before that.
once upon a time the energy in our universe was clearly Zero.
According to what measurements?
Conservation of energy is based on the idea of energy conservation.
Wow, John Madden, you don't say! ::)
You can't just claim that the energy was there.
Why not? If the energy was there since the very first moment of time, then there was never a point where energy was created from nothing and thus no violation of energy conservation happened.
After that, we have to ask if that total energy could come in a special delivery to the BBT and almost from nothing
Unless there was never "nothing" to begin with.
Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?
In principle, no. The creation of energy violates conservation of energy regardless of how much (or how little) is created.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2020 20:42:47
The big bang has no control on the time.Says who?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2020 00:39:37
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/08/2020 05:59:16
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42Which may very well have been at the Big Bang. We don't know of anything that came before that.
Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42It could have, but what evidence is there for any such "small" bang?
If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?
Thanks
I hope that we all agree on the following:
The time should start only from the moment of the appearance of the first energy/mass/particle... in the entire Universe.
Therefore, as long as there was no energy in the entire Universe, the time didn't start ticking.
(However, this isn't the case as I will explain it later on with the help of Lawrence Krauss)
In any case, in order for the time to start at the Big bang or at a small bang, we all should agree that there was no energy in the Universe before that bang.
However, as we all agree that the time should start from the moment of the first energy, and we can even claim when was that time, than it is clear that before that time there was no energy in our Universe.
Only if there was no energy in the entire Universe, then we can agree that the time had started at the same moment of the Big bang.
There might be contradiction in this message.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42Why not? If the energy was there since the very first moment of time, then there was never a point where energy was created from nothing and thus no violation of energy conservation happened.
You can't just claim that the energy was there.
You claim: "If the energy was there since the very first moment of time,"
It almost sound that you mean that the energy was there before the Big bang.
However, you have already gave the answer about the "If"
.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42I'm not. Take note how I said "if" the Big Bang was the beginning of time.
Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?.
Therefore, I see only two options:
1. If there was no energy before the Big Bang - than we have to explain how the energy could penetrate to our Universe at the same moment of the bang.
2. If there was already energy before the Big bang - thn the time was already ticking before the Bang. In this case we also must explain how that energy had been created.
It is clear that: "“Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. It can only converted from one form to another.”
There is no way to bypass the WHOLE requested energy that is needed for the activity of the Big bang. Time manipulation by itself woun't help.
The creation of energy violates conservation of energy regardless of how much (or how little) is created.Therefore, The key concept of the BBT that the energy is there for free, clearly violates conservation of energy.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42In principle, no.
Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?
Sorry, in principle there is a possibility for the existence of energy in the empty space.
In the following video clip Lawrence Krauss, recipient of a 2012 Public Service Award from the National Science Board, describes how quantum mechanics can explain how our universe began:
He specifically claims that even in empty space there is an energy.
He also highlights the idea that gravity has a negative energy.
Therefore, even if we start our story at an empty space and we think that there is nothing there, we end up with some energy in this empty space.
That explanation of energy in the empty space proves that the time was ticking from the first moment of the existence of the empty space. In other words - the time had started at the infinity and there was no single moment without energy or time.
Therefore, the assumption that the time had started 13.8 By ago at the Big Bang is just a fiction.
Lawrence adds that we can't explain everything in our universe out of the energy in the empty space, but it is clear that something could start in the space as even in empty space there is some energy.
As there is energy in the empty space and as the "Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. It can only converted from one form to another", then based on Lawrence explanation there is a possibility to get some particles or even a tiny BH somewhere in the infinite empty space.
In theory D all we need is just a single tiny BH.
Lawrence Krauss confirms this possibility.
If you propose that the Universe started with a single black hole that eventually gave rise to a galaxy, and then that galaxy created more galaxies and so on, then that means that the total amount of matter (and therefore the total amount of gravity) in the Universe is constantly increasing.Yes, that is fully correct!
Lawrence had stated that gravity has a negative energy.
I'm not sure what is the real meaning of "Negative gravity".
However, based on Theory D the added Kinetic energy to each new created positive particles pair is due to gravity energy and Malamute had also confirmed that there is energy in gravity.
So, there is good chance that we get one more confirmation by Lawrence due to the idea of "negative energy".
If that is the case, then that means that galaxies should not be moving away from each other. Instead, the continuously increasing gravity should be pulling those galaxies together more and more strongly over time. We should therefore see galaxies getting closer to each other, not further away.No.
You are missing the key issue how gravity really works.
Do you agree that the gravity force of the Milky Way should be very High?
That galaxy crosses the space at almost 600 Km/s
We all know that for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside.
So, The MY galaxy should collide with billions stars that are located in its path.
If your assumption was correct, then many stars from outside should enter the galaxy.
How many do we really see?
Do you agree that not even a single star could penetrate into the MY galaxy?
Therefore, the gravity of the Milky Way pushes away any star or other outside galaxy.
Nothing could penetrate into the galaxy.
All the matter that we see in the galaxy and orbiting the galaxy had been created BY the MY galaxy itself.
That also includes all the dwarf galaxies around us.
The Milky Way has no intention to eat any matter from outside.
Please look triangulum Galaxy – Messier 33.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gas-bridge-andromeda-triangulum-galaxy-collision_n_1589634
"Observations from the National Science Foundation’s Green Bank Telescope, a massive radio instrument in Green Bank, W.Va., indicate that hydrogen gas may be streaming between the colossal Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, and its neighboring Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
Therefore, our scientists estimate that in the past those two galaxies may have had a close encounter or even collide with each other:
"ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Two galaxies near our own Milky Way may have had a close encounter billions of years ago that created a vast bridge of gas that links them together to this day, a new study finds.
So, if in the past they were close encounter, why Andromeda didn't eat triangulum billions years ago?
The answer is based on Theory D
triangulum Galaxy is the baby of Andromeda.
Mothers do not eat their children.
Therefore, Andromeda had no intention to eat her child that is called triangulum.
This galaxy is moving away from Andromeda and over time it might be as big as his mother galaxy – Andromeda
She should be very happy from of her baby!.
So, gravity actually pushes away the galaxies from each other.
All the wonderful Universe that we see is due to GRAVITY force/energy.
It adds new energy for the new created particles and it drifts the baby galaxies from their mothers.
That drifts is the base for the Galaxies over galaxies (or rocket over rocket) theory which I have already explained.
Therefore, at the local aria we see galaxies that are moving in all directions al low velocities (In the range of the orbital velocity around the galaxy), while at the far end we see them moving away from us at almost the speed of light.
So, there is no need for space expansions.
All the galaxies are expanding due to gravity force.
And many thanks to that wonderful gravity force. Without it, our universe wouldn't be created.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2020 06:47:33
However, as we all agree that the time should start from the moment of the first energy, and we can even claim when was that time, than it is clear that before that time there was no energy in our Universe.
There is no such thing as time before time. It's an oxymoron.
It almost sound that you mean that the energy was there before the Big bang.
If the Big Bang was the beginning of time, then there would have been no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.
If there was no energy before the Big Bang
If there was already energy before the Big bang
Again, as I have already stated, there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time.
The key concept of the BBT that the energy is there for free, clearly violates conservation of energy.
It doesn't violate time symmetry (and consequently conservation of energy) because you can't go back before the beginning of time. There is no such thing as "before the beginning of time".
there was no single moment without energy or time.
Well of course there was no single moment without time. Time is what defines a moment in the first place. That doesn't mean that time goes infinitely far into the past, though.
Lawrence had stated that gravity has a negative energy.
In earlier posts, you denied the existence of negative energy.
Therefore, the gravity of the Milky Way pushes away any star or other outside galaxy.
So, gravity actually pushes away the galaxies from each other.
All the galaxies are expanding due to gravity force.
This has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said on this discussion board. Gravity pushes things away? Really? You know that's not true. If it was, you wouldn't be on Earth right now. It's gravity would have pushed you into space long ago. I honestly shouldn't even have to correct something like this. Even children know better than that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2020 12:07:46
It almost sound that you mean that the energy was there before the Big bang.Do you understand the concept of "at the same time"?
It doesn't mean "before".
Therefore, The key concept of the BBT that the energy is there for free, clearly violates conservation of energy.
You seem to have also missed a point.
We know that energy is conserved.
It's not just that we have done experiments and checked.
It follows from Noether's theorem that, for a universe symmetrical in time, energy must be conserved.
And that criterion- a universe that is symmetrical in time - has existed since the beginning of time.
But it did not apply at the moment where time started because, at that point "backwards in time" was impossible, but "forwards in time" was possible.
That lack of symmetry means that the conservation law at the moment of creation simply does not apply.
So there is no "problem" with the BB creating energy and/ or matter.
On the other hand , what you are saying is the BH are currently generating mass.
That is a breach of the conservation laws because, essentially, yesterday looks like today.
There is a fundamental difference between the one-off event of creation where time is not symmetrical and so the conservation laws do not apply, and your variation of the discredited idea of continuous generation which breaches the conservation laws.
Do you understand that?
.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/08/2020 15:35:43
Well of course there was no single moment without time. Time is what defines a moment in the first place. That doesn't mean that time goes infinitely far into the past, though.Yes it does.
The Universe and its space were not created 13.8 By ago by the Big Bang. The space was always there forever and ever!!!
If we could go back to the infinity in time we surly see that the Universe is there. However, we might find a Universe with empty space.
Never the less, empty space doesn't mean a Universe without energy.
Lawrence Krauss gives perfect explanation about the idea that even in the empty space there is an energy:
Therefore, as there was always some energy in the Universe space (even if it was completely empty), the time was always ticking.
Hence, the idea that the time should start ticking only 13.8 By ago, at the same moment of the bang is a pure fiction.
The time was always there as the energy was also always there. No one could stop the time from ticking. Not by theory D and not by theory B.
Again, as I have already stated, there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time.As I have already explained, time and energy were there in the empty space forever and ever. Therefore, the assumption that "if the Big Bang happened 13.8 By ago, at the beginning of time" is clearly wrong.
The time had started long before that 13.8 By ago.
There is no such thing as time before time. It's an oxymoron.That wasn't my intention.
I hope that by now it is clear that the time was always there.
In earlier posts, you denied the existence of negative energy.No, I didn't claim for negative energy.
I have stated that there is no Negative particles in our universe and those kinds of particles had never been created in our Universe.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:59:16You insist to ignore the observation.
All the galaxies are expanding due to gravity force.
This has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said on this discussion board. Gravity pushes things away? Really? You know that's not true. If it was, you wouldn't be on Earth right now. It's gravity would have pushed you into space long ago. I honestly shouldn't even have to correct something like this. Even children know better than that.
Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?
Please - Yes Or No?
Please look triangulum Galaxy – Messier 33.If in the past they were close encounter, why Triangulum didn't fall into Andromeda at that time by the gravity force?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gas-bridge-andromeda-triangulum-galaxy-collision_n_1589634
"Observations from the National Science Foundation’s Green Bank Telescope, a massive radio instrument in Green Bank, W.Va., indicate that hydrogen gas may be streaming between the colossal Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, and its neighboring Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
Therefore, our scientists estimate that in the past those two galaxies may have had a close encounter or even collide with each other:
"ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Two galaxies near our own Milky Way may have had a close encounter billions of years ago that created a vast bridge of gas that links them together to this day, a new study finds.
You clearly don't believe that "Gravity pushes things away".
So, how could it be that gravity force couldn't bring Triangulum to fall into Andromeda while they were so close together in the past?
What kind of force could push them away from each other while they are so close together? if it is not gravity, what is it?
In the same token, do you agree that the Milky Way crosses Millions or Billions of stars in its way in space?
If so, why we can't see even one star that penetrate from outside into the galactic disc of the Milky Way galaxy?
As you claim that "Even children know better than that" so why due to gravity we can't see any "falling stars" into the galaxy?
Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?
Do you estimate that our children might have an explanation for that?
You seem to have also missed a point.Thanks for your explanation.
We know that energy is conserved.
It's not just that we have done experiments and checked.
It follows from Noether's theorem that, for a universe symmetrical in time, energy must be conserved.
And that criterion- a universe that is symmetrical in time - has existed since the beginning of time.
However, the key question is when was the "beginning of time".
You wish to believe that it took place 13.8 By ago at the Big bang moment.
I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.
Therefore, your assumption to start the beginning of time at the Big bang moment is clearly incorrect!
There is a fundamental difference between the one-off event of creation where time is not symmetrical and so the conservation laws do not apply, and your variation of the discredited idea of continuous generation which breaches the conservation laws.As the time was always ticking (long before that 13.8BY), your assumption about a "one-off event of creation where time is not symmetrical and so the conservation laws do not apply" is completely Wrong!
My idea of continuous generation doesn't breach the conservation laws.
The added kinetic energy is due to Gravity energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2020 16:18:31
You wish to believe that it took place 13.8 By ago at the Big bang moment.That's what the evidence says.
The point is that the idea that it started 13.8 B years ago is plausible and, if it's true then that provides a way to avoid what would otherwise be an insurmountable problem- the conservation of energy.
Your idea does not provide the same explanation of how to get past that problem.
Nor does it provide any other explanation.
I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.That's only a problem if there was "empty space", but there wasn't.
As the time was always ticking (long before that 13.8BY),Simply asserting that- in spite of the fact that the evidence shows otherwise, does not make it true.
My idea of continuous generation doesn't breach the conservation laws.Yes it does.
The added kinetic energy is due to Gravity energy.But there's nothing there to have gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2020 16:27:53
What kind of force could push them away from each other while they are so close together? if it is not gravity, what is it?Momentum.
It's not unlike this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anode_ray
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2020 17:31:21
The space was always there forever and ever!!!
How do you know?
Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?
It's possible.
You clearly don't believe that "Gravity pushes things away".
It provably doesn't. Drop an apple. Does it fall to the Earth or is it repelled into space?
What kind of force could push them away from each other while they are so close together? if it is not gravity, what is it?
Probably momentum. If they were travelling too quickly relative to each other, then gravity wouldn't be able to stop them from continuing on their journey. Gravity is a purely attractive force and therefore cannot be responsible for pushing them apart.
Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?
Who said that it hasn't? How would you know that any given star that you are looking at didn't come from outside of the Milky Way?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/08/2020 21:11:02
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43That's only a problem if there was "empty space", but there wasn't.
I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.
Well, if there is a Universe, than it must has space.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43How do you know?
The space was always there forever and ever!!!
That is correct at any given moment before or after the bang.
In any case, if you can prove that the entire Universe is no bigger than the observable Universe, then you can theoretically justify your assumption that the space had been created by the Big bang.
However, many of our scientists claim that the entire Universe is much bigger than the maximal size of the observable Universe. Some of them discuss about Multiverse and some about Infinite Universe.
The BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly. This proves that at least some space was there before the Bang (Let's call it the space - Pre Big bang Space).
Lawrence Krauss had stated clearly that in any empty space there is an energy.
Therefore, as the pre big bang space was clearly there before the big bang, and as based on Lawrence Krauss even if that space was completely empty, there was already some energy there.
Hence, even small amount of energy in the in the pre Big bang space/Universe must already ticking the time of the Universe.
Therefore, you can't claim any more that the time had started to tick only at the Big bang moment.
It seems to me that the assumption that the Big Bang had also created a space in the Universe is purely unrealistic.
Do you really consider that the entire Universe was just waiting for the bang to set some space in it?
What about conservation law of space?
How any sort of bang could create new space?
Sorry, If there was no space in the universe before the bang, then there will be no space after the bang.
The creation of space due to the Big bang is clearly unrealistic
How any sort of bang could create a space?
Conclusion - If the entire Universe is bigger than the observable universe - you should set the BBT at the garbage of the history as the time was already ticking before the bang..
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43It's possible.
Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?
Do we have any idea how close they were in the past?
Why the Momentum can't be due to Gravity?
Triangulum Galaxy is the baby of Andromeda. Therefore for sure it was orbiting around its mother when it was in the stage of dwarf galaxy. We know that there are several dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way. Do we know if anyone of those galaxies has any intention to fall into the Milky Way?
So you claim that stars from outside are falling into the galactic disc.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43Who said that it hasn't? How would you know that any given star that you are looking at didn't come from outside of the Milky Way?
Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?
Based on this assumption, all the 400,000,000 stars came from outside.
If that is the case, then we should find at any given moment at least few stars that are in their way to fall on the galactic disc.
Therefore, would you kindly show even one single star that is moving at the direction of the galactic spiral arms?
However, this star should be located at the range of 3,000 to 6,000 LY above or below the spiral arms galactic plane (and not at the edge of the spiral arms).
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2020 21:22:54
The assumption that the Big Bang had also created a space in the Universe is purely unrealistic.
Why?
Do you really consider that the entire Universe was just waiting for the bang to set some space in it?
If the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time, then there was no waiting. You can't wait when there is no time.
What about conservation law of space?
There is no such law.
Sorry, If there was no space in the universe before the bang
Again, there is no such thing as "before the bang" if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time.
Therefore, as the pre big bang space was clearly there before the big bang
Stop saying "before the Big Bang". How many times do I have to tell you that time before time is an oxymoron?
Hence, even small amount of energy in the in the pre Big bang space/Universe must already ticking the time of the Universe.
The problem is that you are assuming that there was such a thing as "pre Big Bang space". If time started at the Big Bang, then there wasn't.
Therefore, you can't claim any more that the time had started to tick only at the Big bang moment.
If time started at the Big Bang, I most certainly can.
Why the Momentum can't be due to Gravity?
It could have been, but that would be because the two galaxies were falling towards each other like an apple towards the Earth. But you claim that gravity pushes galaxies apart, so you can't invoke that as an explanation.
Do we know if anyone of those galaxies has any intention to fall into the Milky Way?
They aren't living things. They can't have an "intention".
So you claim that stars from outside are falling into the galactic disc.
No. What I said is that you can't tell if any given star you are looking at came from outside or not.
Any conclusions you draw based on the assumption that gravity pushes things apart is just plain wrong and goes against common observation (have you dropped that apple yet?). As you are so fond of saying, it is "fiction".
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2020 21:56:20
So you claim that stars from outside are falling into the galactic disc.Why would you make such a stupid comment?
Based on this assumption, all the 400,000,000 stars came from outside.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2020 03:30:50
The problem is that you are assuming that there was such a thing as "pre Big Bang space". If time started at the Big Bang, then there wasn't.What about "if" not?
As you are using the word "if", then it is clear that you are not so sure about that "if".
So, it could be if - yes or if - not.
Do you agree that there is a chance that the time had started before the Big bang?
In any case, do you confirm that many of our scientists claim that the entire Universe is much bigger than the maximal size of the observable Universe?
Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?
What is the chance that the entire Universe is infinite or Multiverse?
I do recall that you have stated that if the Universe is infinite than it was already infinite before the bang.
As the entire Universe is clearly bigger than the Observable Universe, then don't you agree that this extra space was already there before the bang?
Therefore, why do you reject the idea that there was a "Pre Big bang Space" while the BBT can only cover the size of the observable Universe?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/08/2020 04:06:39
Do you agree that there is a chance that the time had started before the Big bang?
Yes. Whether it did or not doesn't mean that conservation of energy was violated. The only way that it would be violated would be if the total amount of energy changed over time. If it stayed the same over time, then there were no violations. The Big Bang does not require the energy to have been zero at any moment.
Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?
Wrong. At least some inflation models post that inflation is still happening in other regions of the Universe outside of the observable universe. If that's the case, then the total size of the Universe could be many, many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe.
What is the chance that the entire Universe is infinite or Multiverse?
Probably unknowable.
I do recall that you have stated that if the Universe is infinite than it was already infinite before the bang.
That was only one possibility. It isn't the only one.
As the entire Universe is clearly bigger than the Observable Universe, then don't you agree that this extra space was already there before the bang?
No.
the BBT can only cover the size of the observable Universe
Wrong.
Since you think gravity repels things, why haven't you floated off into space yet?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2020 06:10:14
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:30:50
Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?
Wrong. At least some inflation models post that inflation is still happening in other regions of the Universe outside of the observable universe. If that's the case, then the total size of the Universe could be many, many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe.
Before we start any sort of explanation, would you kindly answer the following?
1. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?
2. Do you confirm that based on this model of the BBT, the maximal size of the Observable universe should be 92BY?
3. Do you also confirm that the size of the entire universe must be bigger than the observable Universe?
Please, Yes or no.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/08/2020 06:36:45
1. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?
It's the other way around. The Big Bang model has to conform to what we observe about the Universe.
2. Do you confirm that based on this model of the BBT, the maximal size of the Observable universe should be 92BY?
Again, you've got it backwards.
3. Do you also confirm that the size of the entire universe must be bigger than the observable Universe?
Probably, but we don't know how much bigger.
Since you think gravity repels things, why haven't you floated off into space yet?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2020 10:25:58
Before we start any sort of explanation, would you kindly answer the following?I'm still waiting for you to explain why you kicked off this thread with something that's simply wrong.
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.
Though your idea that gravity pushes has more comedy value.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2020 17:59:32
Is it real?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:10:14It's the other way around. The Big Bang model has to conform to what we observe about the Universe.
1. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?
So, do you mean that each time that we observe a contradiction in the BBT theory, our scientists add some adaptation to the theory?
I do recall that few years ago our scientists have estimated that the maximal size of the Universe is about 13 Bly.
Than it was changed to the observable universe which is 92Bly.
Now you claim that they can fit it to 250 Bly and if needed to 1000 Bly or even to the Infinity.
Hence, any contradicted assumption of yesterday in the BBT can be fixed today to meet the new observation.
So, at any new discovery, you just add new patch to this theory.
Wow, it almost sounds as unbeatable theory.
Is it correct?
Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?
What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?
Could it be that the mission of our scientists is to hold the BBT theory forever and ever and overcome any contradicted observation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2020 18:24:05
So, do you mean that each time that we observe a contradiction in the BBT theoryLet us know when that happens.
It's interesting that you say "What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?"
Well, what would it take to get you to recognise that your idea is a breach of the conservation of energy (just a quick reminder, the BBT isn't a breach of it) and that it doesn't make a universe that looks anything like this one and it requires that things fall up?
Do you not realise that any of those is proof that you are wrong?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/08/2020 23:00:56
So, do you mean that each time that we observe a contradiction in the BBT theory, our scientists add some adaptation to the theory?
That's how it works for pretty much all theories, yes. But if that can't be done, then it's time to look for a better theory.
I do recall that few years ago our scientists have estimated that the maximal size of the Universe is about 13 Bly.
Do you have a source for that?
Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?
What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?
Yes. There are two things in particular I can think of. The discovery of black dwarfs and blue dwarfs would be evidence against the Big Bang theory. The Universe, as we currently understand it, is not old enough for either black dwarfs or blue dwarfs to yet exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_dwarf_(red-dwarf_stage)
If the Big Bang theory is wrong, discarding it will probably be neither a quick nor a simple process. Long standing models tend to undergo modification in an attempt to reconcile them with new observations. As those observations become increasingly difficult to account for, the consensus about the validity of the model will begin to break down. Then, when a new, better theory comes along that can explain the data better, then the consensus will begin to switch to the new theory.
But "Theory D" is not that better theory, in part because it claims that gravity pushes things apart (which is obviously wrong because I'm sitting right here comfortably on the Earth's surface).
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 06:20:14
NOQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:59:32
Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?
What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?
Yes. There are two things in particular I can think of. The discovery of black dwarfs and blue dwarfs would be evidence against the Big Bang theory. The Universe, as we currently understand it, is not old enough for either black dwarfs or blue dwarfs to yet exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_dwarf_(red-dwarf_stage)
I disagree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf
A black dwarf is a theoretical stellar remnant...
So, it is some sort of theoretical idea.
You can't use it to qualify or disqualify as long as you can't prove that it is there.
We must use a solid verification observation.
For example:
1. The Size of the Universe - Based on theory D the Universe is infinite. So if you can prove that the Universe is compact and finite, than this theory should be set in the garbage.
On the other hand, the BBT can only explain a compact universe. There must be a limit for the size that you can achieve in only 13.8 By. So if you had estimated that the maximal size of the Universe is 92By (and even called it observable Universe while it is clearly that we can't observe to that distance), then this range MUST be the maximal distance. If we discover that the Universe is bigger than that (The estimation for the minimal size of the entire Universe is 250 By) or especially if the Universe size is infinite, then its the time to set this theory in the garbage.
2. Expansion - Based on the BBT the expansion is due to space expansion and not due to galaxies expansion. Based on theory D it is the opposite. The expansion is due to the galaxies expansion while there is no expansion in the space at all.
So, with all the advanced technology, it is our obligation to find a way to measure if the expansion is due to space expansion or due to galaxies expansion. This is a key element in both theories.
I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.
You have offered only one unproved theoretical idea against the BBT.
Sorry, this isn't science.
In real science you set the expectation from your theory and kill it if you find any sort of contradiction.
As you can't offer any sort of real observation that could kill the BBT, that theory is clearly based on none scientific verifications/evidences.
But "Theory D" is not that better theory, in part because it claims that gravity pushes things apart (which is obviously wrong because I'm sitting right here comfortably on the Earth's surface).There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.
There is also the issue of the Circular orbital velocity which Newton had called it the "magic velocity"
I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.
The idea that objects can fall in and increase their circular orbital velocity due to momentum or any other idea is a pure fiction.
If the BBT was real, we wouldn't find even a single circular orbital system in the whole Universe.
The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them away. Nothing in between as orbital cycle.
However, with your permission, let's focus on the Key issues: What is needed to kill a Theory?
If the Big Bang theory is wrong, discarding it will probably be neither a quick nor a simple process.The BBT is clearly wrong and it is very simple to kill any irrelevant theory
I'm ready to offer a full list of real observations that can kill theory D.
Please, would you kindly also offer real list of verifications that should kill the BBT.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/08/2020 06:46:55
A black dwarf is a theoretical stellar remnant...
So, it is some sort of theoretical idea.
Black dwarfs are an inevitable consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. White dwarf stars continually radiate energy in the form of light and heat into the Universe. They have a limited amount of energy. Because of that, their energy must deplete over time and they must cool off and dim. Eventually, they will become so cold that they will no longer emit visible light. It's exactly the same thing that happens to a hot coal taken out of a furnace. It dims and cools. If you understood anything about thermodynamics, you would know that such a thing must come to pass. They can't glow forever.
I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.
So can I: gravity doesn't push things.
There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.
A statement in need of substantiation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2020 08:45:39
I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.Well, that's trivially falsified.
We put probes into circular orbits around other bodies which we study such as the Moon and Mars.
The idea that objects can fall in and increase their circular orbital velocity due to momentum or any other idea is a pure fiction.Again, trivially false.
We call it the "slingshot effect" and we make use of it when getting probes out into deep space.
The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them awayGravity has never been observed to push.
If it did then the Solar system wouldn't exist.
I'm ready to offer a full list of real observations that can kill theory D.It is already dead. You should accept that and move on.
It was still-born.
It started out dead when you said this
"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."
That wasn't rue in March and it isn't true now.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 11:02:35
A probe without engine is an object.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14Well, that's trivially falsified.
I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.
We put probes into circular orbits around other bodies which we study such as the Moon and Mars.
It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.
I'm ready to pay you 1000$ if you can do the following:
Let's assume that we wish to set that prove at a circular velocity around the Earth.
The radius of the circular velocity is R.
Now, let's assume that the probe is located at 100R from the earth.
I give you the option to have full control on its engine from 100R till 10R
However, once it is below that 10R radius, you have no access to its engine.
Now try to bring the probe so it will get into circular orbital velocity at R.
It is quite clear that you would never be able to do it (You can ask NASA about it)..
However, if you can do it, you get 1000$ - promise.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2020 11:41:42
A probe without engine is an object.A probe with an engine is also an object.
A probe without engine is an object.All the engine does is push things.
It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.
That same push could be delivered by being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.
So it's possible to get arbitrarily close to circular orbit, purely by chance.
None of this is relevant.
Gravity does not push.
If it did then orbits would not be stable.
Stop wasting time trying to distract from the real problems with your idea.
(1) Gravity does not push
(2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws
(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one.
(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from.
(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age."
(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26
That is clearly incorrect.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:02:35All the engine does is push things.
A probe without engine is an object.
It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.
That same push could be delivered by being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.
So it's possible to get arbitrarily close to circular orbit, purely by chance.
Even if one biilion objects that are "randomly wandering bit of space junk" are falling in the direction of the Earth, none of them will set a circular orbit around the Earth.
All of them have only two options:
1. Direct collision with the Earth. (Pull inwards/collision)
2. Move nearby the earth, gain high velocity/momentum due to gravity and be ejected back to space. (Push outwards)
Not even a single object would set a circular orbit.
So, there are two options for a falling in object.
1. Pulling inwards - direct collision)
2. Pushing outwards
In the same token, assuming that one million stars are falling into the SMBH, while in this process of falling in, they break into Billion of Billion of Atoms/particles, not even One particle could join the accretion disc and set a circular orbit at 0.3c.
This is imagination!!!
Therefore, all the particles/Atoms in the accretion disc MUST come from INSIDE in order to set a circular orbit around the SMBH.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14Gravity has never been observed to push.
The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them away
If it did then the Solar system wouldn't exist.
Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14So can I: gravity doesn't push things.
I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.
As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.
We see this activity constantly.
With regards to the MW galaxy it's ultra high gravity ONLY push away.
This galaxy has a size of over than 100,000 LY
As it cross the space at almost 600Km/s it surly collide with many dwarf galaxies/stars clusters and it total with millions or even billions of stars per year.
All of those dwarf galaxies/clusters/stars are pushed away and clear the road for the mighty spiral galaxy.
Not even a single star can penetrate into the MW galactic disc.
If you consider that I'm wrong, than please show me only one star that you consider that it is in his way to collide with the galactic disc of the galaxy.
With regards to the Sun
The Oort cloud is orbiting at about 2LY around the Sun.
There are billions of objects in this could.
Many of them are ejected outwards as the sun orbits around the center of the galaxy.
There are billions of other stars that also orbit at the galactic disc around the center at a similar radius from the center.
All of them have a similar Oort cloud.
All of them are ejecting objects as they cross the space.
Therefore, the galactic disc might be full with garbage.
However, not even a single object can penetrate into the solar system.
Any object that is not part of the Oort cloud must be shifted away by the solar gravity and clear the road for the coming solar system.
Sorry, you have a severe misunderstanding about how gravity really works.
Stop wasting time trying to distract from the real problems with your idea.(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It does
(2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.
(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.
(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always there. The idea that the Big bang could create space is the biggest fiction of the BBT as the space was always there. We already know that even in empty space there is some energy. That energy could potentially converted into a the energy that is needed to create a single BH. I don't need more than a single BH in the whole universe .
(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation. However, if the whole Universe acts as a cavity than it is clear that there is no end for this cavity. Therefore, it must be infinite.
(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.
(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.
This isn't the case. The far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. therefore, we can't get their light and therefore we can't see them although they are there. So in any direction that we look, there are billions over billions galaxies. However we can only see those galaxies that due to relativity law we can still see them.
Well, I'm not sure where is the border between long to short.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14A statement in need of substantiation.
There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.
With regards Earth - It seems to me that up to the upper most satellite radius, we can consider it as a "short rang". Therefore, any satellite there will eventual fall in and collide with the earth.
With regards to the galaxy - Any object that is located outwards the galactic disc would be pushed away even if it moves at ultra velocity directly in the direction of the galaxy center It will be shifted away by 100%.
In any case, please focus on the following subject:
Please, would you kindly also offer real list of verifications that should kill the BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2020 17:31:37
As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.
Why don't you consider the third possibility?
Don't you understand it?
Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.
They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.
Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.
(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It doesIt plainly does not.
But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.
This says a lot about you...
2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.
It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.
(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.
The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.
(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always thereNo.
Because Olber.
Also because the conservation laws.
(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.That's not a sensible explanation.
Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.
As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?
That would be finite, and we would see BBR .
(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.Other mechanisms (those which are not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.
(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).
Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/08/2020 20:39:16
Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.
Yes... a force that has only ever been observed to be attractive will push things away... That makes perfect sense! ::)
Well, I'm not sure where is the border between long to short.
With regards Earth - It seems to me that up to the upper most satellite radius, we can consider it as a "short rang". Therefore, any satellite there will eventual fall in and collide with the earth.
If that was true, then the Earth could not orbit the Sun because the Sun is further away from us than any satellite. The Earth would repel the Sun instead and be pushed into interstellar space. Orbits require a net attraction to be present. Orbits are "falling and missing". Falling requires a net attraction.
If you disagree and think that it is possible for two objects with a net repulsion to each other to orbit each other, then tell me how you would make a positively-charged object orbit another positively-charged object instead of simply having both objects fly away from each other.
Please, would you kindly also offer real list of verifications that should kill the BBT.
I already did. The discovery of objects that are too old for the Big Bang to account for would do that. Black dwarfs and blue dwarfs are two such objects. The discovery of cold neutron stars would be yet another.
Post by: Halc on 17/08/2020 22:45:21
Your promises are as empty as your ideas. Just another deliberate lie.Quote from: Bored chemist...Quote from: Dave LevI claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.Well, that's trivially falsified.
It is quite clear that you would never be able to do it (You can ask NASA about it)..
However, if you can do it, you get 1000$ - promise.
Quote
I'm ready to pay you 1000$ if you can do the following:What's the point of starting out at 100R if we have control down to 10R? That's the same as starting at 10R.
Let's assume that we wish to set that prove at a circular velocity around the Earth.
The radius of the circular velocity is R.
Now, let's assume that the probe is located at 100R from the earth.
I give you the option to have full control on its engine from 100R till 10R
Quote
However, once it is below that 10R radius, you have no access to its engine.
Now try to bring the probe so it will get into circular orbital velocity at R.
But there can be a bit of space junk already in a circular orbit about Earth. There are plenty, and they have to track all of them to avoid collisions. You drop a screwdriver while working on a sattelite? It becomes a bit of space junk in a circular orbit, pretty much forever.Quote from: Bored chemistThat same push could be delivered by being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.That is clearly incorrect.
Even if one biilion objects that are "randomly wandering bit of space junk" are falling in the direction of the Earth, none of them will set a circular orbit around the Earth.
The most trivial case I can think of: You have a billiard ball of mass m already in a 1R orbit. You take your 'probe' which is another identical ball and put it in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 10R to 1R. If it hits the orbiting one from the rear exactly at 1R, the 'probe' will now assume a circular orbit, and the other ball is boosted to the now eccentric orbit.
This works just as well for a ball falling from space right into Earth. It only has to cross paths once, and just the right hit will take away exactly the correct momentum and drop the 'probe' into a circular orbit. The hit must occur at 1R, but otherwise the angle of the hit seems more important than the velocity or mass of the thing hit.
For our object in the eccentric orbit, v = √(GM(2/r - 1/a)) where r is 1 and a is 5.5
So v at r=1 would be √(GM*1.818) which needs to be reduced to v = √(GM) so all it needs to do is hit (with an elastic frictionless collision) an identical billiard ball with tangential velocity of √(GM), with random values for the other two velocity components, and the probe will assume a perfectly circular orbit. Adding friction just changes the math a bit. The thing it hits might be a bit of clay which doesn't bounce off at all, but sticks.
You will not pay me the 1000 of course since that 'promise' is as much bull-s**t as everything else you post. And NASA does not assert that a circular orbit cannot result from a collision. It would violate time-reversibility if that were so: An object could then not be knocked out of a circular orbit by an elastic collision with a random object, which seems pretty clearly wrong to me. If it can be knocked out, then playing the events in reverse should illustrate it being knocked into a circular orbit.
My point in posting seems to be to illustrate that pretty much all your assertions (especially the ones where you use the word 'clearly' or 'you must agree') are wrong, and so obviously wrong that it can only be deliberate. Nobody is as stupid as you portray yourself.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/08/2020 15:57:24
But there can be a bit of space junk already in a circular orbit about Earth. There are plenty, and they have to track all of them to avoid collisions. You drop a screwdriver while working on a sattelite? It becomes a bit of space junk in a circular orbit, pretty much forever.It seems that you have missed the whole point.
The most trivial case I can think of: You have a billiard ball of mass m already in a 1R orbit. You take your 'probe' which is another identical ball and put it in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 10R to 1R. If it hits the orbiting one from the rear exactly at 1R, the 'probe' will now assume a circular orbit, and the other ball is boosted to the now eccentric orbit.
This works just as well for a ball falling from space right into Earth. It only has to cross paths once, and just the right hit will take away exactly the correct momentum and drop the 'probe' into a circular orbit. The hit must occur at 1R, but otherwise the angle of the hit seems more important than the velocity or mass of the thing hit.
For our object in the eccentric orbit, v = √(GM(2/r - 1/a)) where r is 1 and a is 5.5
So v at r=1 would be √(GM*1.818) which needs to be reduced to v = √(GM) so all it needs to do is hit (with an elastic frictionless collision) an identical billiard ball with tangential velocity of √(GM), with random values for the other two velocity components, and the probe will assume a perfectly circular orbit. Adding friction just changes the math a bit. The thing it hits might be a bit of clay which doesn't bounce off at all, but sticks.
So, let me explain it from the beginning.
Based on the BBT, there was a time when all the hydrogen Atoms had been created. At that time there was no SMBH of even BH. I claim that without very massive object nearby, all of those atoms would be spread into the open space without creating even one Star.
Let's assume that the earth had been created. Let's also assume that at the first phase it was not orbiting around anything and nothing was orbiting around it. However, an object (at the size of Asteroid) is coming from the deep space directly in the direction of the earth. As this object comes to a distance of 100R it is affected by the gravity of the Earth. So, I give you the possibility to have full control on its movement in space till it get to 10R.
You can even set it in a pure circular orbit around the Earth at this radius 10R with a circular orbital velocity - V.
Your mission is to set it at a circular orbit at radius R.
Please remember, at this phase nothing orbits around the Earth. So it can't hit any object that orbits at R.
Based on Newton (V= M G /R^2), in order to set it radius R its velocity should be 10^-2 V = about 3.15V
V is the velocity at 10R.
So, if we wish to decrease the circular orbit radius by 10 we must increase the velocity by 3.15
I claim that in any direction/velocity that you would push (from 10R in the direction of the Earth) this asteroid it would never set a circular orbit around the earth at lower radius.
I would like to add that even if you have one million asteroids orbiting at 10R and you try to shoot them randomly in the direction of earth, It is quite clear to me that even if they hit with each other the chance that one of them will set a circular orbit at R is virtually Zero.
So, the whole point is as follow:
1. Star formation - We know that after the big bang, all the atoms (that have just been created) are moving away from each other (due to the inflation and space expansion). Therefore, without a massive object nearby, not even a single star would be created. Therefore the expectation that stars could be formed after the Big bang is none realistic.
2.Circular orbit - Let's assume that something had been created. The chance to get an circular orbital system between two objects that came from the deep space in the direction of each other is virtually zero.
3. Increasing the Circular orbital velocity - Let's assume that a star (S2) is orbiting around a main object as a SMBH. The chance that it would fall in, break to its atoms and set an orbital velocity of 0.3c at the accretion disc is also zero.
Therefore, all the matter in the accretion disc must come from inside (from the SMBH) and not from outside (as a cloud or star)
This is my point of view
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/08/2020 16:37:48
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:48:26
Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.
Yes... a force that has only ever been observed to be attractive will push things away... That makes perfect sense!
Well, I have asked it before, so let me ask it again.
Do we see any star that is falling into the galactic disc from outside?
Why we see so many Meteors falling on earth due to gravity and NOT EVEN ONE STAR falling into the galactic disc?
You don't care about it as you clearly don't have an interest in observation that contradicts the concept that you have.
As you think that gravity only Pull, you have no interest to contradict it with the missing stars that should be pulled inwards to the galactic disc.
If you claim that Gravity only pull, while it is clear that the galaxy collides with Millions of stars as it cross the open space, why none of those stars are falling in the galactic disc?
Actually, we do see stars, but all of them are ejected outwards from the galactic disc.
Those stars are called - Hypervelocity stars.
Our scientists claim that those "are stars with a velocity so great, that they are able to escape the gravitational pull of the galaxy"
So, if we see quite many Hypervelocity stars that are ejected from the galactic disc, why we can't find even one that is falling in?
You claim that gravity should only Pull.
So please show me one star that the gravity of the galactic disc pulls it inwards.
It is quite clear that you won't find any!!!
The answer is very simple -
Any star that moves away from the galactic disc/spiral arm is ejected from the galactic disc at that Hypervelocity due to gravity!!!
As our scientists have no clue how gravity works at the spiral galaxy they clearly don't understand the real meaning of those Hypervelocity stars and they also don't care about the missing "falling in stars".
Therefore, the combination of observable Hypervelocity stars that ejected from the galactic disc with the missing falling in stars proves that the gravity above/ below the galactic disc which should considered as long rang, push objects away and not pull them inwards.
Therefore, the galaxy won't take even one star from outside.
All the stars in the galaxy had been created by the SMBH itself.
Actually, if there was something that called Star DNA, you would surly find that all the stars in the MW galaxy carry the same DNA.
Hence, all the stars belong to the same mother - which is the SMBH in our galaxy.
The spiral shape is a direct outcome of stars that are moving from inside outside. As they do so, they set the spiral arms.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2020 18:22:05
Do we see any star that is falling into the galactic disc from outside?We see entire galaxies of stars falling into eachother.
How could we hope to spot a single star doing it? We have only been looking in detail at the sky for 100 years or so.
So, no star has been seen to move more than 100 light years.
That's time to over about 1/500 of the diameter of the Milky way.
It's unlikely that we would spot it.
If gravity pushed then orbits would not happen.
We would not be here.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2020 18:26:17
So please show me one star that the gravity of the galactic disc pulls it inwards.The Sun.
If gravity was not pulling it in then it would no longer be in the galaxy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/08/2020 19:19:46
As we can spot those Hypervelocity stars, we also should be able to spot at least several in falling stars - if there were any falling in stars.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:37:48We see entire galaxies of stars falling into each other.
Do we see any star that is falling into the galactic disc from outside?
How could we hope to spot a single star doing it? We have only been looking in detail at the sky for 100 years or so.
So, no star has been seen to move more than 100 light years.
That's time to over about 1/500 of the diameter of the Milky way.
It's unlikely that we would spot it.
However, there is not even a single falling in star. Not in 100 Years and not in one billion years due to the following:
1. Do you agree that for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside? Therefore, the open space isn't empty. it should be full with stars.
2. The radius of the MY galactic disc is almost 50,000 Ly. So, just think how many stars should be collide with the galaxy per year.
3. We see so many hypervelocity stars that are ejected from the galaxy, while we couldn't find even one in those 100 years that fall in.
4. How many years are you going to wait until you would understand that our galaxy doesn't pull in any star from outside?
5. Actually, the MW galaxy acts as a mighty Star sprinkler. It ejects stars at any given moment. So the gravity of the galaxy pushes way many stars.
6. Any new born star must be ejected eventually from the arm/galactic disc. That's how the galaxy works (if you like it or not)
7. So, as any spiral galaxy acts as a giant star sprinkler, we have so many stars outside the galaxies.
If gravity pushed then orbits would not happen.We are here as our Sun had been created at the center of the galaxy
We would not be here.
We are still holding our self in the Orion arm.
Sooner or later we will be ejected outwards from the spiral arm and the galactic disc
If we will be ejected alone, we will gain ultrahigh velocity and considered as Hypervelocity star that had been ejected from the galaxy . (very dangerous for us...)
.
If we will be lucky and be ejected with many nearby stars (cluster) we will be more protected and move away from the galactic disc at lower velocity.
If gravity was not pulling it in then it would no longer be in the galaxy.Gravity works locally.
Therefore, the sun doesn't orbit around the center of the galaxy. It orbits around its twin.
Yes, there must be a twin for our sun.
Therefore it moves upwards and downwards several times (about four times) before it set one full cycle around the galaxy in about 240 MLy.
You have to consider the Orion arm as some sort of star' cluster.
So, the central mass of the Sun/twin is orbiting at a cluster that we currently call Orion arm.
Therefore, it moves at high velocity (about 220Km/s) not because of dark matter, but due to the local gravity force in the local spiral arm. Hence, in theory D there is no need for dark matter.
Currently, we are near the edge of the arm facing outwards.
However, don't worry, we will move back inwards later on.
Think about a star cluster. Stars are moving inwards and outwards constantly in a cluster.
In the same token, the Sun might consider that it orbits in a star' cluster, while the galaxy holds by gravity the whole cluster that is called Orion arm.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2020 19:51:04
Anyway gravity sucks.
Post by: Halc on 18/08/2020 20:02:42
I would like to add that even if you have one million asteroids orbiting at 10R and you try to shoot them randomly in the direction of earth, It is quite clear to me that even if they hit with each other the chance that one of them will set a circular orbit at R is virtually Zero.As I said, there's no need for them to be in orbit at all. They can just be passing by and be at the right place at the right time. My orbiting example was simply the easiest one to compute.
You said "NEVER EVER", and two of us have demonstrated you wrong. So you move the goal post I seen and now declare it merely improbable. Given a random hit, I'd agree it's not very probable, but you're letting me control things at a distance, which makes it as probable as my ability to measure accurately. One hit is all it takes, not a million.
Quote
Based on Newton (V= M G /R^2), in order to set it radius R its velocity should be 10^-2 V = about 3.15VStill using the inappropriate formula at all times I see. In fact, the 1R orbit is lower energy than a 10R one, so the trick would be to slow it down, which is what I'm doing with my collisions. I gave the appropriate formula in my post. Yours is for a stable circular orbit, which isn't going to get our object down from 10 to 1 now is it?
V is the velocity at 10R.
So, if we wish to decrease the circular orbit radius by 10 we must increase the velocity by 3.15
Quote
I claim that in any direction/velocity that you would push (from 10R in the direction of the Earth) this asteroid it would never set a circular orbit around the earth at lower radius.But you've backed off that claim and stated it to be merely improbable now. You're admitting you're wrong it seems, but of course you're also wrong about the promised payment.
Quote
2.Circular orbit - Let's assume that something had been created. The chance to get an circular orbital system between two objects that came from the deep space in the direction of each other is virtually zero.And yet our moon is such an object, the result of a two-body collision, and having a nearly circular orbit.
Phobos is in a circular orbit, which is measurably decreasing every year, so that's another example of an orbit dropping, this time without any interference by a 3rd object.
I can think of other real examples that invoke GR, such as the merger of two black holes, which originate from 'deep space', or at least outside of each other's orbits, and they reduce their circular orbit from 10R to 1R all without collision or rockets. Of course the radius doesn't stop at 1R, it keeps going down as the angular momentum is radiated away in the form of gravity waves. But you asked, and that is a very real example that has actually been empirically measured. Pay up, or shut up. I would certainly accept the latter, but you're not going to do that either.
Quote
3. Increasing the Circular orbital velocity - Let's assume that a star (S2) is orbiting around a main object as a SMBH.This is something you've repeatedly denied.
Quote
This is my point of viewMy kid's point of view is that her invisible friend hides her glasses now and then. Your personal point of view has far less self-consistency than that. At least the existence of the invisible friend is not easily falsified, so she's one up on you.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/08/2020 21:06:26
Do we see any star that is falling into the galactic disc from outside?
Why we see so many Meteors falling on earth due to gravity and NOT EVEN ONE STAR falling into the galactic disc?
You have actually created a situation where you "can't lose". If we find a star that is heading towards our galaxy, all you will do is claim that it will eventually be pushed aside before it can enter. Any star that is already in our galaxy, on the other hand, will be one that you claim never came from outside in the first place. For example, I can link you to this source about stars in our galaxy that probably came from outside of it, but you will simply claim that they originated in our own galaxy instead, won't you? https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/12/world/milky-way-stars-nyx-scn-trnd/index.html#:~:text=(CNN)%20Astronomers%20have%20found%20a,Greek%20goddess%20of%20the%20night.
It's interesting to note what they say about the Nyx stars in that link, though:
Quote
The cluster of 250 stars are rotating with the Milky Way's galactic disk, where most of the galaxy's stars are located. But the Nyx stars are also moving toward the center of the galaxy.
That contradicts what you claimed earlier when you said:
However, all the stars in the arms MUST be drifted outwards over time.
I am about to predict the future! Oh! Oh! I see... I SEE... I see Dave trying to argue that the stars aren't actually moving towards the center of the galaxy! He is going to say there is a mistake of some kind!
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/08/2020 10:49:59
If we find a star that is heading towards our galaxy, all you will do is claim that it will eventually be pushed aside before it can enter. Any star that is already in our galaxy, on the other hand, will be one that you claim never came from outside in the first place. For example, I can link you to this source about stars in our galaxy that probably came from outside of it, but you will simply claim that they originated in our own galaxy instead, won't you? https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/12/world/milky-way-stars-nyx-scn-trnd/index.html#:~:text=(CNN)%20Astronomers%20have%20found%20a,Greek%20goddess%20of%20the%20night.Thanks
It's interesting to note what they say about the Nyx stars in that link, though:
This article doesn't fulfill my request.
I have asked if we see any star that is falling into the galactic disc from outside (not about the center itself).
However, it is still very interesting article due to the following:
1. Born outside - "The stars that are born outside the Milky Way have different chemicals than the ones that are born here," Necib said.
There is no further explanation about the different chemicals than the ones that are born here
Does it mean that all the 400 Billions stars in the Milky Way have the same unique chemicals?
Can you please elaborate about it? What is so unique in the chemicals of all the stars that had been created in the Milky Way?
What kind of different chemicals our scientists have found in all of those 250 stars.
2. Cluster radius:
It is stated:
"This new star cluster has been named Nyx, for the Greek goddess of the night. They are within the vicinity of our sun's location in the galaxy and extend about 6,000 light-years above and below the plane of the Milky Way galaxy if you were to view it from the side."
"The cluster of 250 stars are rotating with the Milky Way's galactic disk, where most of the galaxy's stars are located. But the Nyx stars are also moving toward the center of the galaxy."
So, this cluster is located near our sun (within the vicinity of our sun's location in the galaxy). Therefore, it is about 28,000 Ly from the center of the galaxy.
At that location the thickness of the galactic disc is only 1KLY.
So how could it be that suddenly out of the blue there will be a cluster which gets to 6000 Ly above and below the galactic disc?
Is this realistic?
3. Star density near the sun location:
The density of star near our location is exactly 64 per 50LY radius. Our scientists have found that the total number stars per 100LY is exactly 512.
Therefore, by using the same density, the number of the stars per 6000Ly should be :
(6000/100) ^ 3 * 512 = 216,000 * 512 = 110,592,000 stars or about 100 M stars in a cluster with a radius of 6000Ly.
So, somehow, we see here a cluster with a radius of 6000 Ly that only has 250 stars.
The real meaning of that is a density of only one star per 1000Ly. (6^3=216, or almost 250)
How can we consider that ultra low density as a cluster?
This is clear unrealistic idea. Could it be that we actually see two clusters or some stream of stars? One cluster/stream of stars at 6000 below the disc and the other is 6,000 Ly above the disc?.
However, I have full confidence that if we will measure their velocity with regards to the galactic disc, we should find that all of them are drifting away from the galactic disc. (above or below the disc)
4. Cluster Location:
As it is stated: "This new star cluster has been named Nyx, for the Greek goddess of the night. They are within the vicinity of our sun's location in the galaxy and extend about 6,000 light-years above and below the plane of the Milky Way galaxy if you were to view it from the side."
What does it mean that: "They are within the vicinity of our sun's location in the galaxy"?
It should be quite close to the Sun location, however how close?
How far from our location and how far from the galaxy center this cluster is located?
Is it part of any nearby arm, or is it stays there by itself?
Can we see exactly the location of all the stars above and below the disc including there movment direction?
5. Moving toward the center of the galaxy:
"The cluster of 250 stars are rotating with the Milky Way's galactic disk, where most of the galaxy's stars are located. But the Nyx stars are also moving toward the center of the galaxy."
Well stars at the galactic disc can't move in the direction of the center.
However, if 125 stars are located at 6000 Ly above the disc and the other 125 are located below the disc and all of them are moving away from the disc, than they have already disconnected from the disc. In this case, as they move upwards/downwards from the disc, they can move in the direction of the center. However, They will NEVER EVER fall back again at the galactic disc.
In any case, can we really measure their exact distance from the center of the galaxy and verify if they are really decreasing this radius?
Conclusion:
A cluster with a density of one star per 1000Ly can't be considered as a cluster
Why they do not try to verify if the stars are falling into the galactic disc?
They surly have error in this verification.
However, I mostly appreciate to get further explanation of that "different chemicals" issue.
He is going to say there is a mistake of some kind!You are absolutely correct!
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/08/2020 11:11:04
What kind of different chemicals our scientists have found in all of those 250 stars.It's the ratios of the elements that are different.
Did you read the Nature article?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1131-2.epdf?sharing_token=e71tq_0EyC0COzNCPhCZW9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mq3fdQAZsAtY7Q6FxuakNtbhEKxyKIugF0KF-bGpOgZ-N5JSk5uFieMqObpFVfPmM06zaRRIpzeuO4q-y_nYNg_22QCyrOJFRwmp8TQFHO6uzbX7mBwCm9o3YehpbzhWOZ2h__FvoH7QKCV7to902XBJ4KZrw8OCIx5VTVGYnq8MgSxJRqcxLJU3McXJfyDydGU5qpTDI7xWu-PTKFNv0bi2JJb2Mg8x2HmSOigg5solRV_nUfYG5SH038jilL4_U%3D&tracking_referrer=edition.cnn.com
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/08/2020 11:14:14
So how could it be that suddenly out of the blue there will be a cluster which gets to 6000 Ly above and below the galactic disc?Because it's in the process of collision.
That's the point.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/08/2020 15:56:27
In any case, can we really measure their exact distance from the center of the galaxy and verify if they are really decreasing this radius?
Yes. We can know the direction that a star is moving by look at its redshift. You might want to look it up.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/08/2020 17:55:59
Ha! I knew that you were going to be in denial!Well, even our scientists don't know for sure the source of those stars. They clearly claim that: "further spectroscopic follow-ups (for example, from APOGEE-2, 4MOST and WEAVE) are needed to validate these conclusions."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1131-2.epdf?sharing_token=e71tq_0EyC0COzNCPhCZW9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mq3fdQAZsAtY7Q6FxuakNtbhEKxyKIugF0KF-bGpOgZ-N5JSk5uFieMqObpFVfPmM06zaRRIpzeuO4q-y_nYNg_22QCyrOJFRwmp8TQFHO6uzbX7mBwCm9o3YehpbzhWOZ2h__FvoH7QKCV7to902XBJ4KZrw8OCIx5VTVGYnq8MgSxJRqcxLJU3McXJfyDydGU5qpTDI7xWu-PTKFNv0bi2JJb2Mg8x2HmSOigg5solRV_nUfYG5SH038jilL4_U%3D&tracking_referrer=edition.cnn.com
For the small subset for which we have data, Nyx stars have abundances that are comparable to both the thick disk (Fig. 2) and dwarf galaxies29–31. However, the small dispersion in the chemical abundances for Nyx does suggest a single progenitor origin, especially given the coherence in velocity space. Given the small subset of Nyx stars with abundances, and the large measurement uncertainties from RAVE-on, further spectroscopic follow-ups (for example, from APOGEE-2, 4MOST and WEAVE) are needed to validate these conclusions."
So, why in the other articale they were so sure that those stars came from outside?
As they don't come from outside, it is clear that all of those stars had been created in the galaxy itself.
Velocity: It is stated that the average speed is 250 Km/s
The Sun is velocity is 220Km/s. So, as both are moving with the galactic disc, how could it be that our scientists claim that they are lagging by 90Km/s with regards to the galactic disc.
"It is clearly prograde, moving with the Galactic Disk, but lagging in velocity by ~90 km s−1. The 232 most likely stars to belong to Nyx are coherent in velocity, with total average speed 250 km s−1 and dispersion of 48 km s−1."
How could it be?
Cluster or stellar stream?
"In the article it is clearly stated that they specifically claim for a stellar stream as I was expecting:
So it isn't a cluster by definition.
In any case, as the distance between the stars is about 2KPC (6000Ly) how can we even consider it as a stream?
"Here we present evidence for a new prograde stellar stream in the vicinity of the Sun, whose interpretation provides a hint that such a merger occurred in our Galaxy"
However, as I have already pointed, our scientists don't know for sure the source of those stars and therefore, they can't claim that it is "a merger occurred in our Galaxy".
Conclusion:
This article is very confusing.
we really don't know the correct locations of the star.
We don't know if they are locatedd near a spiral arm or far away from any arm.
We don't know the source of those stars
Why they claim that they are coming (falling in) from a dwarf galaxy while they claim clearly that "further spectroscopic follow-ups (for example, from APOGEE-2, 4MOST and WEAVE) are needed to validate these conclusions."?
How could it be that the stars are moving at 250Km/s and still lagging by 90 km/s?
Yes. We can know the direction that a star is moving by look at its redshift. You might want to look it up.Once we understand what do we really see, we can consider if what we see is realistic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/08/2020 18:25:48
Ha! I knew that you were going to be in denial!Well, even our scientists don't know for sure the source of those stars. They clearly claim that: "further spectroscopic follow-ups (for example, from APOGEE-2, 4MOST and WEAVE) are needed to validate these conclusions."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1131-2.epdf?sharing_token=e71tq_0EyC0COzNCPhCZW9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mq3fdQAZsAtY7Q6FxuakNtbhEKxyKIugF0KF-bGpOgZ-N5JSk5uFieMqObpFVfPmM06zaRRIpzeuO4q-y_nYNg_22QCyrOJFRwmp8TQFHO6uzbX7mBwCm9o3YehpbzhWOZ2h__FvoH7QKCV7to902XBJ4KZrw8OCIx5VTVGYnq8MgSxJRqcxLJU3McXJfyDydGU5qpTDI7xWu-PTKFNv0bi2JJb2Mg8x2HmSOigg5solRV_nUfYG5SH038jilL4_U%3D&tracking_referrer=edition.cnn.com
For the small subset for which we have data, Nyx stars have abundances that are comparable to both the thick disk (Fig. 2) and dwarf galaxies29–31. However, the small dispersion in the chemical abundances for Nyx does suggest a single progenitor origin, especially given the coherence in velocity space. Given the small subset of Nyx stars with abundances, and the large measurement uncertainties from RAVE-on, further spectroscopic follow-ups (for example, from APOGEE-2, 4MOST and WEAVE) are needed to validate these conclusions."
So, why in the other articale they were so sure that those stars came from outside?
As they don't come from outside, it is clear that all of those stars had been created in the galaxy itself.
Velocity: It is stated that the average speed is 250 Km/s
The Sun is velocity is 220Km/s. So, as both are moving with the galactic disc, how could it be that our scientists claim that they are lagging by 90Km/s with regards to the galactic disc.
"It is clearly prograde, moving with the Galactic Disk, but lagging in velocity by ~90 km s−1. The 232 most likely stars to belong to Nyx are coherent in velocity, with total average speed 250 km s−1 and dispersion of 48 km s−1."
How could it be?
Cluster or stellar stream?
"In the article it is clearly stated that they specifically claim for a stellar stream as I was expecting:
So it isn't a cluster by definition.
In any case, as the distance between the stars is about 2KPC (6000Ly) how can we even consider it as a stream?
"Here we present evidence for a new prograde stellar stream in the vicinity of the Sun, whose interpretation provides a hint that such a merger occurred in our Galaxy"
However, as I have already pointed, our scientists don't know for sure the source of those stars and therefore, they can't claim that it is "a merger occurred in our Galaxy".
Conclusion:
This article is very confusing.
we really don't know the correct locations of the star.
We don't know if they are locatedd near a spiral arm or far away from any arm.
We don't know the source of those stars
Why they claim that they are coming (falling in) from a dwarf galaxy while they claim clearly that "further spectroscopic follow-ups (for example, from APOGEE-2, 4MOST and WEAVE) are needed to validate these conclusions."?
How could it be that the stars are moving at 250Km/s and still lagging by 90 km/s?Yes. We can know the direction that a star is moving by look at its redshift. You might want to look it up.Once we understand what do we really see, we can consider if what we see is realistic.
None of it matters because you still run into these.
As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.
Why don't you consider the third possibility?
Don't you understand it?
Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.
They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.
Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It doesIt plainly does not.
But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.
This says a lot about you...2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.
It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.
The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always thereNo.
Because Olber.
Also because the conservation laws.(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.That's not a sensible explanation.
Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.
As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?
That would be finite, and we would see BBR .(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.Other mechanisms (those which are not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).
Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/08/2020 20:34:07
The Sun is velocity is 220Km/s. So, as both are moving with the galactic disc, how could it be that our scientists claim that they are lagging by 90Km/s with regards to the galactic disc.
The speed of stars in the galactic disk is not uniform. In general, those closer to the center will move faster. It's also important to remember that there can be differences in relative velocity in different directions. The Nyx cluster might be moving at an overall velocity of 250 km/s while it is moving more slowly than that in the direction of the galactic rotation.
"In the article it is clearly stated that they specifically claim for a stellar stream as I was expecting:
So it isn't a cluster by definition.
In any case, as the distance between the stars is about 2KPC (6000Ly) how can we even consider it as a stream?
All you are doing is arguing semantics. A stream can be a cluster. Cluster is just another name for "group". A stream of water is group of water molecules, so it can also be considered a cluster of water molecules.
Once we understand what do we really see, we can consider if what we see is realistic.
Redshift tells us both whether an object is moving towards or away from the Earth and what its relative velocity is. That's been well understood for many decades.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/08/2020 21:35:43
How the moon had been created:QuoteQuoteAnd yet our moon is such an object, the result of a two-body collision, and having a nearly circular orbit.
2.Circular orbit - Let's assume that something had been created. The chance to get an circular orbital system between two objects that came from the deep space in the direction of each other is virtually zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon
"Theia, an early protoplanet the size of Mars, hit Earth in such a way that it ejected a considerable amount of material away from Earth. Some proportion of these ejecta escaped into space, but the rest consolidated into a single spherical body in orbit about Earth, creating the Moon. "
This is a pure imagination:
If two solid bodies at that size collide with each other, they both would be broken to several/many smaller objects.
Then the broken objects would collide again and again with each other and break themselves to death.
None of those broken objects would regain the nice round ball shape of a planet or moon.
We have an excellent example for the outcome of collision
It is calls - Ceres
This Object was a real planet in the past.
The Cerest with the Million asteroids are the left over from a mighty collision.
So, the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.
Collision can only destroy the object!
Please remember that all the planets and moons in the solar system had been created from the same giant gas cloud (Similar to G1 and G2.) near the SMBH and at the same time.
As almost 98% of the matter is based on Hydrogen and helium, the solid matter in the Moon (or the planet) was less than 2% from the total matter in their creation time.
So, the moon and the earth were born as a compact gas clouds. Over time the solid matter moved inwards due to gravity, while most of the hydrogen and helium have been evaporated to the open space.
This is the only way to get a nice ball shape of a solid planet or moon.
We actually have a solid prove for that.
The gravity force between the Sun/Moon is more than twice stronger than the gravity force of the Moon/earth gravity.
So, why the Moon orbits around the earth and not around the sun?
The answer is quite simple:
The current mass of the moon or the earth is less than 2% from their mass in the creation date.
So, each one of them had almost 50 times its current mass.
They were also closer to each other.
Therefore, during the creation process, the Moon had been locked to earth by their higher gravity force.
This also proves that objects do not change the hosting object even if their gravity force had been reduced dramatically.
Hence, if an object is coming from the open space it will continue to the open space or collide with the nearby object.
It would never ever set a circular orbital cycle with that object.
Given a random hit, I'd agree it's not very probable, but you're letting me control things at a distance, which makes it as probable as my ability to measure accurately. One hit is all it takes, not a million.In our real universe a planet, moon or even asteroids are not elastic ball.
If you hit it you break it.
So, if you hope that by collision with other asteroids you can force this asteroid to orbit around the earth, then this is a fiction.
After one or two collisions you would end up with millions of broken objects.
If you could set a simulation in a computer, you would see that not even one tiny object would be bound by gravity to earth.
Meteor are perfect examples for that activity.
A group of asteroids cross the path of the earth while they orbit around the Sun.
Those asteroids that fall in considered as meteors.
All the other continue in their path and totally neglect the earth.
None of those asteroids that orbit the sun will start orbiting the Earth.
Hence, the wishful hope that somehow objects that came from the open space could orbit around each other (while they have no engine) is just a pure imagination.
Phobos is in a circular orbit, which is measurably decreasing every year, so that's another example of an orbit dropping, this time without any interference by a 3rd object.I have also discussed about Phobos.
I totally disagree with the assumption that its radius is decreasing.
If I remember it correctly, our scientists based this assumption on a difference of only 0.7 sec per full orbital cycle while they monitor it from outside by a probe.
This is really unrealistic assumption.
The 0.7sec is clearly falling in the error range while the probe is also orbiting Mars.
If we wish to get better understanding, we had to monitor it from inside or to monitor its orbital velocity.
As it drifts in, its orbital velocity should be faster.
Please let me know if you have better example for an object that drifts inwards and increases its orbital velocity during this process.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/08/2020 21:43:02
None of those broken objects would regain the nice round ball shape of a planet or moon.Why is the Earth round then?
It was formed by countless collisions.
So, why the Moon orbits around the earth and not around the sun?The Moon does orbit the Sun.
The answer is quite simple:
The path it traces is slightly perturbed by the motion round the Earth. It is close to a 13 sided polygon with rounded corners.
Why invent some tosh to explain something that's not true?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/08/2020 21:44:00
The 0.7sec is clearly falling in the error range while the probe is also orbiting Mars.
What makes this "clear"?
A decent digital watch would measure better than that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/08/2020 21:48:02
I totally disagree with the assumption that its radius is decreasing.It isn't an assumption, it's a measurement.
What you are saying there is "I do not agree with reality".
You might want to think about that.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/08/2020 21:53:58
If I remember it correctly, our scientists based this assumption on a difference of only 0.7 sec per full orbital cycle while they monitor it from outside by a probe.
No, it was measured from the surface. A lander there was able to measure (not assume, not theorize, not simulate, but actually measure) that the time it takes for Phobos to orbit Mars is slowly decreasing. So this means it's either speeding up, coming closer to Mars, or both.
The 0.7sec is clearly falling in the error range
Support that statement with evidence. Do you have authoritative information about the error range of the measurements?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/08/2020 05:22:26
Would you kindly introduce this interesting article about Phobos.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:35:43
If I remember it correctly, our scientists based this assumption on a difference of only 0.7 sec per full orbital cycle while they monitor it from outside by a probe.
No, it was measured from the surface. A lander there was able to measure (not assume, not theorize, not simulate, but actually measure) that the time it takes for Phobos to orbit Mars is slowly decreasing. So this means it's either speeding up, coming closer to Mars, or both.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/08/2020 05:55:22
Would you kindly introduce this interesting article about Phobos.
After looking into it further, it seems that it was indeed measured by a spacecraft as you said. That was a mistake on my part. One article describing the measurement is here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JE002376
Quote
The Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) instrument on the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft has observed 15 transits of the shadow of Phobos across the surface of Mars, and has directly measured the range to Phobos on one occasion. The observed positions of Phobos and its shadow are in good agreement with predictions from orbital motion models derived from observations made prior to 1990, with the notable exception that Phobos is gradually getting ahead of its predicted location. This effect makes the shadow appear at a given location earlier than predicted, and the discrepancy is growing by an amount which averages 0.8 s/yr.
Quote
The instrument time is related to the spacecraft clock with submillisecond precision [Neumann et al., 2001], and spacecraft time is maintained by the Mars Global Surveyor project with accuracy better than 30 milliseconds relative to UTC.
As stated above, the overall accuracy of the laser altimeter is in the range of +30 milliseconds (+0.03 seconds). That uncertainty is significantly smaller than the measured value of 0.8 seconds per year, so you can't blame the measured decrease in orbital time of Phobos on uncertainty.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/08/2020 20:52:16
After looking into it further, it seems that it was indeed measured by a spacecraft as you said. That was a mistake on my part. One article describing the measurement is here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JE002376
In the article it is stated that the measurement was based on "the shadow of Phobos across the surface of Mars":
The Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) instrument on the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft has observed 15 transits of the shadow of Phobos across the surface of Mars,
However, Phobos isn't a nice round object.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)
Dimensions 27 × 22 × 18 km[5]
Mean radius 11.2667 km (1.76941 mEarths)
So, how do we know for sure if we measure the shadow of Phobos while it is 27Km, 22Km or 18Km?
It is clear that the shadow time could be different from size to size.
How our scientists couldn't consider this possibility?
There is also the issue of the eccentricity of phobos orbital cycle:
Periapsis 9234.42 km[5]
Apoapsis 9517.58 km[5]
Semi-major axis 9376 km[5] (2.76 Mars radii)
Eccentricity 0.0151[5]
How do we know if we set the measurements at the Periapsis, Semi-major axis or exactly at the Semi-major axis.
At each location the velocity is different.
I assume that there might be some other issues as the accuracy of the probe velocity and location.
So, how our scientists couldn't consider that the 0.8Sec/year under those variants is clearly not good enough.
Actually, if I recall it correctly, our scientists have discovered that the moon is drifting away just after setting at the moon a special reflector for a laser beam.
Therefore, in order to get a clear indication we need to set one probe on Mars and the other on Phobos.
There is no short cut.
As stated above, the overall accuracy of the laser altimeter is in the range of +30 milliseconds (+0.03 seconds). That uncertainty is significantly smaller than the measured value of 0.8 seconds per year, so you can't blame the measured decrease in orbital time of Phobos on uncertainty.Sorry, I totally reject this unrealistic measurement.
Please remember - All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.
Moons and planets are considered as located at long rang.
Therefore, all the Moons and planets in the solar system must drift outwards without any exception!
Post by: Kryptid on 20/08/2020 21:02:04
So, how do we know for sure if we measure the shadow of Phobos while it is 27Km, 22Km or 18Km?
Because they aren't morons. The shape of the shadow changing will not cause the shadow to slowly get further and further "ahead of schedule". The location of the center of the shadow would not be affected by that. If the shadow is rising earlier than expected and setting earlier than expected, then it must either be because Phobos is moving faster or it is getting closer. For an orbit, both of those things would be the same.
How do we know if we set the measurements at the Periapsis, Semi-major axis or exactly at the Semi-major axis.
At each location the velocity is different.
Again, they aren't morons. They know these things. The time it takes for Phobos to complete an orbit would always be the same if its distance from Mars was unchanging. Either that, or the time to complete an orbit would increase if it was getting further away. Neither of those two scenarios are supported by the measurements.
I assume that there might be some other issues as the accuracy of the probe velocity and location.
Again, those things are knowable. That would be taken into consideration as a part of the measurement error (which is a mere 0.03 seconds). You are wrong and you know it. You are just attempting to save face in your desperation.
Therefore, in order to get a clear indication we need to set one probe on Mars and the other on Phobos.
There is no short cut.
This is a lie. If I threw a baseball towards you, you wouldn't need a laser beam to tell you that it's getting closer to you.
Therefore, I totally reject this unrealistic measurement.
Because it contradicts your world-view. You will reject any and all evidence that contradicts what you believe is true.
Please remember - All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.
Moons and planets are considered as located at long rang.
Therefore, all the Moons and planets in the solar system must drift outwards without any exception!
This is a perfect example of "begging the question". You use your own conclusion to assume that any evidence against it is automatically wrong. This is a logical fallacy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2020 21:10:42
How our scientists couldn't consider this possibility?What makes you think they didn't consider it?
Do you actually have a copy of the research report?
Does it include error analyses?
Or are you just trying to pretend that science doesn't work, and you know better?
Well that's not going to work, not least because you keep getting stuff wrong.
Sorry, I totally reject this unrealistic measurement.Again, you are rejecting observed reality.
There are words for people who do that. Most of them are not polite.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/08/2020 22:48:41
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/08/2020 05:13:13
To further clarify why your argument is stupid, take into consideration that MOLA measured the travel time for the shadow 15 separate times. What's more important, is that some of these measurements were taken many years apart. The first measurement was done on September 20, 1977, while the most recent one was taken on June 28, 2004. That's almost 27 years. 27 years multiplied by an average rate of 0.8 seconds per year means that Phobos' shadow was seen to be ahead of schedule by about 21 seconds in 2004 when compared to 1977. It would have risen 21 seconds earlier than expected and set 21 seconds earlier than expected. To claim that a laser system with millisecond precision could somehow be off by a whopping 21 seconds is unbelievable.Actually, I agree with you.
In the following article it is stated:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JE002376
Phobos is very close to Mars, at a mean distance of 9378 km, compared to 3394 km radius of Mars, and with an orbital period of only 7.65 hours, is well within the synchronous orbital distance.
So, Phobos is located very close to Mars, therefore, we can't consider it as a long range.
Sorry for missing this key information.
Remember my explanation:
Please remember - All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.As Phobos is clearly located at a short range, I fully agree that it should actually drift inwards.
Moons and planets are considered as located at long rang.
Therefore, all the Moons and planets in the solar system must drift outwards without any exception!
Post by: Kryptid on 21/08/2020 05:52:14
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/08/2020 06:08:57
Basically what you are telling me is that you will be critical of data that disagrees with you, but will not be critical of that exact same data when you later understand that it never disagreed with you in the first place.
I have stated clearly that:
All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.That statement is correct By 100%
Phobos can't be considered as Long range.
Therefore it drifts inwards.
Sorry again for missing this information.
If you think that this statement is incorrect, than find other moon at a long rang that drifts inwards
Post by: Kryptid on 21/08/2020 06:12:19
I have stated clearly that:
It doesn't matter what you said. The issue is that you just showed your bias.
If you think that this statement is incorrect, than find other moon at a long rang that drifts inwards
And at what distance does something become "long range"? You have to define that, otherwise I wouldn't even know what I'm looking for. Since you accept that the Moon is moving away from the Earth, can I assume that you will say that any orbiting objects separated by a distance greater than that from the Earth to the Moon will move away from each other over time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2020 08:56:06
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
(The so-called anomaly is now resolved and the data for the movement of the objects tallies with expectations.)
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/08/2020 21:56:03
And at what distance does something become "long range"?Well, I will claim that it is a good question as I don't know the exact answer.
If I really knew the answer, I would claim for excellent question.
In any case, that range must be based on the ratio between the radius of the main object to the distance to the orbital object. The ratio in the mass also must have an impact and some other variants.
However, it is quite clear that the ratio between radiuses to distance is the most important issue.
Therefore, in order to make it easy, I would assume that if the distance to the orbital object is below five times the radius of the main object, it should be considered as short rang.
If the distance is more than 20 Times the radius, it should be considered as long rang.
I'm not sure about the range between 5 times to 20 times.
However, just for the discussion, let's assume that the boarder is about 10 Times the radius.
Since you accept that the Moon is moving away from the Earth, can I assume that you will say that any orbiting objects separated by a distance greater than that from the Earth to the Moon will move away from each other over time?The moon is at a distance of 380,000 Km from the earth.
The radius of the earth is about 6,350 Km
So the ratio is more abot 60 times. Therefore, it is surly considered at a long range.
We know that distant objects obey Newtonian gravity.Wow!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
(The so-called anomaly is now resolved and the data for the movement of the objects tallies with expectations.)
Thanks for that great article.
It is fully correlated with my theory.
In the article it is stated:
"As the anomaly was growing, it appeared that the spacecraft were moving more slowly than expected.
The spacecraft were flying with almost no additional stabilization thrusts during their "cruise",
If the positions of the spacecraft were predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they were actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year"
The outcome is:
This anomaly is now believed to be accounted for by thermal recoil forces.
However, it is also stated:
Gravity
It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter. However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below). Likewise, the anomaly does not appear in the orbits of Neptune's moons, challenging the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly may be an unconventional gravitational phenomenon based on range from the Sun.[28]
So, my answer to this anomaly is gravity and only gravity.
I agree with the following assumption that it is due to Kuiper belt:
It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter.
As there is no dark matter, you can ignore this issue.
So, Kuiper belt has an impact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
The Kuiper belt (/ˈkaɪpər, ˈkʊɪ-/),[1] occasionally called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, is a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun.[2] It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is far larger – 20 times as wide and 20–200 times as massive.
But I would even add the Oort cloud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
The Oort cloud (/ɔːrt, ʊərt/),[1] sometimes called the Öpik–Oort cloud,[2] first described in 1950 by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort,[3] is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals proposed to surround the Sun at distances ranging from 2,000 to 200,000 au (0.03 to 3.2 light-year
So, how it really works:
My statement is: "Gravity works locally and locally is relatively"
So, as those spacecrafts do not orbit any more around the Sun or any other main object, they are not considered as gravity bonded to any main object in the solar system including any other planet or moons. They are clearly free in the open space.
Therefore, as they enter to the aria of Kuiper belt they are surly effected by the gravity of this belt.
Our scientists have rejected this idea due to:
"However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below)"
That is perfectly Ok.
this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, Due to the idea that GRAVITY WORKS LOCALLY
As the outer planets are gravity bonded with the Sun, Kuiper_belt wouldn't have any impact on their orbital velocity.
In the same token:
All the asteroids that orbit the Sun don't care about the Earth Gravity force.
So, if a group of one billion asteroids cross the orbital path of the earth, some of them might directly collide with the earth and fall in as meteors, but NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!
Please remember - "Gravity works locally and locally is relatively"
Later on I will explain how the whole spiral galaxy is directly effected by this anomaly.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/08/2020 22:23:07
In any case, that range must be based on the ratio between the radius of the main object to the distance to the orbital
Why would the radius matter when gravity isn't based on the radius? If you look at Newton's equation, only distance and mass matter. If you squeezed the Earth down to half its current diameter while keeping its mass the same, the orbit of satellites or the Moon would not be affected at all.
But even if you use radius as the metric, then the Hulse-Taylor binary would count. It's a pair of neutron stars in orbit around each other and they are slowly getting closer. Neutron stars are very, very small (about 10 kilometers in radius) and the distance between these two neutron stars varies between 1.1 solar radii (about 765,000 kilometers) and 4.8 solar radii (about 3,340,000 kilometers). The distance between them therefore varies from about 76,500 times to 334,000 times their radii, thus qualifying as "long ranged" by you. So their orbit is decaying despite them being at long range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2020 23:12:43
So, my answer to this anomaly is gravity and only gravity.The actual scientists disagree.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2020 23:16:56
t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!
the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.
You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/08/2020 00:44:19
If natural satellites cannot form by a planet capturing asteroids via gravity, nor by a collision event, then how do you propose that satellites come into existence at all?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2020 05:20:32
Why would the radius matter when gravity isn't based on the radius? If you look at Newton's equation, only distance and mass matter. If you squeezed the Earth down to half its current diameter while keeping its mass the same, the orbit of satellites or the Moon would not be affected at all.Newton is correct.
Gravity is based on mass and the orbital radius.
However, we can also claim that the mass (assuming that it is not BH or Neutron Star) is directly affected by the radius of the object, assuming that the density for a given radius is more or less the same between all the objects in the Universe.
Hence, I assume that if we take a planet with the same radius of the Earth, it should have more or less the same density of mass as the Earth and therefore the same total mass.
As I have stated, I don't know how to extract the correct ratio from the mass itself.
Therefore, I have used the ratio between the Radius of the Main object (which represents the total mass of the main object) to the distance till the orbital object (which represents the orbital radius).
Therefore, this ratio is only valid for a planet or moon due to their fixed density of mass per radius.
It isn't applicable for BH or Neutron star
But even if you use radius as the metric, then the Hulse-Taylor binary would count. It's a pair of neutron stars in orbit around each other and they are slowly getting closer. Neutron stars are very, very small (about 10 kilometers in radius) and the distance between these two neutron stars varies between 1.1 solar radii (about 765,000 kilometers) and 4.8 solar radii (about 3,340,000 kilometers). The distance between them therefore varies from about 76,500 times to 334,000 times their radii, thus qualifying as "long ranged" by you. So their orbit is decaying despite them being at long range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.
Therefore, let's compare it to the Sun.
In the article it is stated that the mass of this Neutron stars is 1.441 M☉
To make our calculation easier let's assume that the total mass of this star is exactly as the Sun.
We know that the radius of the Sun is: 696,342 ± 65 kilometres
Therefore, we need to Use the Sun radius as an equivalent radius to that star.
the distance between these two neutron stars varies between 1.1 solar radii (about 765,000 kilometers) and 4.8 solar radii (about 3,340,000 kilometers).
Now, if we compare the equivalent radius of the neutron star to the Orbital radius (distance), we get exactly the magic ratio of one to five as I was expecting for short range.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/08/2020 05:46:25
As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.
Uh huh, yeah, you moved the goalposts. Typical.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2020 07:17:39
Is it real?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:20:32Uh huh, yeah, you moved the goalposts. Typical.
As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.
I have clearly set the relationship between short rang and long rang and we have just found that it perfectly works even for Neutron star.
Where is your appreciation for this important discovery.
If you still assume that this discovery is wrong, would you kindly offer an example to support your assumption?
If you can't do so, don't you agree that I should get a reward from the science community for this discovery.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/08/2020 08:02:37
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2020 11:30:06
I have clearly set the relationship betweenYou have not done anything "clearly" except cheat by moving the goal posts.
Don't forget to address this as well as these
t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.
You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.
And, of course, these
As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.
Why don't you consider the third possibility?
Don't you understand it?
Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.
They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.
Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It doesIt plainly does not.
But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.
This says a lot about you...2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.
It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.
The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always thereNo.
Because Olber.
Also because the conservation laws.(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.That's not a sensible explanation.
Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.
As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?
That would be finite, and we would see BBR .(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.Other mechanisms (those which are not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).
Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2020 12:49:20
In order to make your idea work, you had to "decompress" the neutron star.Yes, that is very normal and expected approach.
The radius of a Moon, Planet and even a star is a good indication for its mass.
However, if we are using a compressed object as BH or Neuton star, why can't we "decompress" it in order to find its equivalent radius.
I would like to remind you that we have started our discussion on the drifting direction of orbital objects around a planets or moons.
I have stated that for a long range the drifting would be outwards, while for short range wound be inwards.
I have also answered your question how to distinguish between long rang to short rang.
At that moment, I didn't even consider if that ratio would be applicable also for a BH or Neutron Star.QuoteQuote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 06:12:19Well, I will claim that it is a good question as I don't know the exact answer.
And at what distance does something become "long range"?
If I really knew the answer, I would claim for excellent question.
In any case, that range must be based on the ratio between the radius of the main object to the distance to the orbital object. The ratio in the mass also must have an impact and some other variants.
However, it is quite clear that the ratio between radiuses to distance is the most important issue.
Therefore, in order to make it easy, I would assume that if the distance to the orbital object is below five times the radius of the main object, it should be considered as short rang.
If the distance is more than 20 Times the radius, it should be considered as long rang.
I'm not sure about the range between 5 times to 20 times.
However, just for the discussion, let's assume that the boarder is about 10 Times the radius.
You had never said anything before about needing to do that.Sure, as we didn't discuss on a compressed objects as BH or Neutron Star
Why do you claim that it is forbidden to find the equivalent radius that is needed to reflect the real mass of that objects?.
By "decompress" the neutron star (I have called it "equivalent radius'), we have got the a perfect fit to the expected drifting direction based on short rang.
Therefore, your following message is totally incorrect:
You introduced that idea solely so you could avoid having to admit that you were wrong. That's called "moving the goalposts", and it's a logical fallacy.I didn't change the ratio in order to meet unexpected observation as our scientists normally do when they see a contradiction.
It is very logical to "decompress" the mass/radius of a neutron star or a BH in order to understand its real equivalent radius.
That by itself gives the highest confidence to the theory about the drifting direction based on short rang or long rang.
Hence, I would expect to get from you the highest appreciation for my theory as it works even for Neutron star.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2020 13:07:37
why can't we "decompress" it in order to find its equivalent radius.Because it's "making up the results".
Yes, that is very normal and expected approach.OK, then you should be able to show where other people have talked of decompressing neutron stars.
Just a few links would be good.
I would like to remind you that we have started our discussion on the drifting direction of orbital objects around a planets or moons.No.
You started it by saying this
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
Which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is not true.
I have stated that for a long range the drifting would be outwards, while for short range wound be inwards.And yet, reality continues to show that it isn't.
Why do you claim that it is forbidden to find the equivalent radius that is needed to reflect the real mass of that objects?.Because that's just fudging the numbers so they fit the answer you want. It's not science.
It is very logical to "decompress" the mass/radius of a neutron star or a BH in order to understand its real equivalent radius.No.
You have two choices, you can use the real radius or you can make up an"equivalent radius".
You can't have both.
And then there's the rest of this
I have clearly set the relationship betweenYou have not done anything "clearly" except cheat by moving the goal posts.
Don't forget to address this as well as theset NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.
You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.
And, of course, theseAs I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.
Why don't you consider the third possibility?
Don't you understand it?
Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.
They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.
Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It doesIt plainly does not.
But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.
This says a lot about you...2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.
It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.
The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always thereNo.
Because Olber.
Also because the conservation laws.(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.That's not a sensible explanation.
Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.
As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?
That would be finite, and we would see BBR .(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.Other mechanisms (those which are not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).
Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2020 16:15:04
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:49:20No.
It is very logical to "decompress" the mass/radius of a neutron star or a BH in order to understand its real equivalent radius.
You have two choices, you can use the real radius or you can make up an "equivalent radius".
You can't have both.
I have stated clearly that the radius of the main object is used as a reference for its total mass.
The radius of the Earth is about 6000 Km, while the radius of the Sun is 696,342 km.
Now, Neutron star has a mass of 1.4 solar mass while its real radius is only 10 km.
This 10Km might be relevant to a big asteroid.
So, why are you so sure that we need to use the real radius of 10Km (that represents an asteroid) and not the equivalent radius that represents an object with has a mass of 1.4 solar mass?
This request clearly contradicts my explanation.
You keep push it just in order to show that my message is incorrect - even if you don't fulfill my clear explanation
Therefore, it is very clear to me that you have one mission -
You wish to show that whatever I say is incorrect even if you know that it is 100% correct.
Is it?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:49:20And yet, reality continues to show that it isn't.
I have stated that for a long range the drifting would be outwards, while for short range wound be inwards.
So, far you couldn't show any example that could contradict my explanation about the drifting direction based on the long/short range
If you still don't agree, then please try to introduce a contradiction.
I have already given you full answer for that and for many other issues.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
Which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is not true.
Why don't you read it.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/08/2020 17:22:20
The radius of a Moon, Planet and even a star is a good indication for its mass.
That's demonstrably wrong. Let's compare Titan and Mercury. Titan has a radius of about 2,575 kilometers whereas Mercury has a radius of about 2,440 kilometers. So Titan is slightly larger than Mercury and thus, according to your reasoning, should be slightly more massive than Mercury. On the contrary, Mercury is more than twice as massive as Titan (0.055 Earth masses vs. 0.0225 Earth masses).
And we can also compare the Sun with the star Arcturus. Arcturus is more than 25 times the radius of the Sun, so, according to your naive reasoning, it should be much more massive than the Sun. In reality, it's very close to the Sun's mass (1.08 solar masses). So you are just plain wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2020 17:48:37
So, why are you so sure that we need to use the real radius of 10KmBecause the real radius isn't a made up number.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2020 17:49:41
I have already given you full answer for that and for many other issues.I read them.
Why don't you read it.
I pointed out that your replies don't actually answer the problem.
So I'm asking you to try again, but using science this time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2020 17:52:16
So, far you couldn't show any example that could contradict my explanation about the drifting direction based on the long/short rangeYes I did.
Pioneer.
But you decided to pretend that it agrees with your imaginary world.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/08/2020 21:09:01
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2020 10:59:55
I have clearly answered your question:So, far you couldn't show any example that could contradict my explanation about the drifting direction based on the long/short rangeYes I did.
Pioneer.
But you decided to pretend that it agrees with your imaginary world.
We know that distant objects obey Newtonian gravity.Wow!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
(The so-called anomaly is now resolved and the data for the movement of the objects tallies with expectations.)
Thanks for that great article.
It is fully correlated with my theory.
In the article it is stated:
"As the anomaly was growing, it appeared that the spacecraft were moving more slowly than expected.
The spacecraft were flying with almost no additional stabilization thrusts during their "cruise",
If the positions of the spacecraft were predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they were actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year"
The outcome is:
This anomaly is now believed to be accounted for by thermal recoil forces.
However, it is also stated:
Gravity
It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter. However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below). Likewise, the anomaly does not appear in the orbits of Neptune's moons, challenging the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly may be an unconventional gravitational phenomenon based on range from the Sun.[28]
So, my answer to this anomaly is gravity and only gravity.
I agree with the following assumption that it is due to Kuiper belt:
It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter.
As there is no dark matter, you can ignore this issue.
So, Kuiper belt has an impact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
The Kuiper belt (/ˈkaɪpər, ˈkʊɪ-/),[1] occasionally called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, is a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun.[2] It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is far larger – 20 times as wide and 20–200 times as massive.
But I would even add the Oort cloud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
The Oort cloud (/ɔːrt, ʊərt/),[1] sometimes called the Öpik–Oort cloud,[2] first described in 1950 by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort,[3] is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals proposed to surround the Sun at distances ranging from 2,000 to 200,000 au (0.03 to 3.2 light-year
So, how it really works:
My statement is: "Gravity works locally and locally is relatively"
So, as those spacecrafts do not orbit any more around the Sun or any other main object, they are not considered as gravity bonded to any main object in the solar system including any other planet or moons. They are clearly free in the open space.
Therefore, as they enter to the aria of Kuiper belt they are surly effected by the gravity of this belt.
Our scientists have rejected this idea due to:
"However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below)"
That is perfectly Ok.
this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, Due to the idea that GRAVITY WORKS LOCALLY
As the outer planets are gravity bonded with the Sun, Kuiper_belt wouldn't have any impact on their orbital velocity.
In the same token:
All the asteroids that orbit the Sun don't care about the Earth Gravity force.
So, if a group of one billion asteroids cross the orbital path of the earth, some of them might directly collide with the earth and fall in as meteors, but NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!
Please remember - "Gravity works locally and locally is relatively"
Later on I will explain how the whole spiral galaxy is directly effected by this anomaly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2020 11:21:41
As I said .
But you decided to pretend that it agrees with your imaginary world.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2020 12:21:19
That's demonstrably wrong. Let's compare Titan and Mercury. Titan has a radius of about 2,575 kilometers whereas Mercury has a radius of about 2,440 kilometers. So Titan is slightly larger than Mercury and thus, according to your reasoning, should be slightly more massive than Mercury. On the contrary, Mercury is more than twice as massive as Titan (0.055 Earth masses vs. 0.0225 Earth masses).Well, I fully agree that the radius isn't a perfect indication for the total mass of the object.
And we can also compare the Sun with the star Arcturus. Arcturus is more than 25 times the radius of the Sun, so, according to your naive reasoning, it should be much more massive than the Sun. In reality, it's very close to the Sun's mass (1.08 solar masses). So you are just plain wrong.
As the density of the matter has also an impact on the total mass.
However, I have found it as a relatively good indication (we can always improve it).
The difference in the mass between Titan and Mercury that have a similar radius is twice.
However I still took some margin between the short to long range.
I wish I could find better accurate indication.
Therefore, this difference in mass between Titan and Mercury is not so critical in our verification between short and long.
With regards to Arcturus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcturus
it is currently ascending the red-giant branch and will continue to do so until it accumulates a large enough degenerate helium core to ignite the helium flash.[7] It has likely exhausted the hydrogen from its core and is now in its active hydrogen shell burning phase. However, Charbonnel et al. (1998) placed it slightly above the horizontal branch, and suggested it has already completed the helium flash stage.[32]
So, it is not a "normal" star as the Sun. "It has likely exhausted the hydrogen from its core and is now in its active hydrogen shell burning phase."
Therefore, its current radius is relatively so big.
In this case, I would use the real radius for the Long/short estimation.
However, In order to verify if my estimation is correct, I have taken few examples from the following list (which confirms my estimation):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs
Sirius A
Mass 2.063 ± 0.023[11] M☉
Radius 1.711[12] R☉
Epsilon Eridani
Mass 0.82±0.02[10][11] M☉
Radius 0.735±0.005[12] R☉
61 Cygni A
Mass 0.70[10] M☉
Radius 0.665 ±0.005[11] R☉
Tau Ceti
Mass 0.783±0.012[2] M☉
Radius 0.793±0.004[2] R☉
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2020 12:25:17
t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.
You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2020 12:30:45
I am also still waiting for explanation of how natural satellites are formed.
I have already explained this issue:
Please remember that all the planets and moons in the solar system had been created from the same giant gas cloud (Similar to G1 and G2.) near the SMBH and at the same time.I would like to add the following:
As almost 98% of the matter is based on Hydrogen and helium, the solid matter in the Moon (or the planet) was less than 2% from the total matter in their creation time.
So, the moon and the earth were born as a compact gas clouds. Over time the solid matter moved inwards due to gravity, while most of the hydrogen and helium have been evaporated to the open space.
This is the only way to get a nice ball shape of a solid planet or moon.
We actually have a solid prove for that.
The gravity force between the Sun/Moon is more than twice stronger than the gravity force of the Moon/earth gravity.
So, why the Moon orbits around the earth and not around the sun?
The answer is quite simple:
The current mass of the moon or the earth is less than 2% from their mass in the creation date.
So, each one of them had almost 50 times its current mass.
They were also closer to each other.
Therefore, during the creation process, the Moon had been locked to earth by their higher gravity force.
This also proves that objects do not change the hosting object even if their gravity force had been reduced dramatically.
Hence, if an object is coming from the open space it will continue to the open space or collide with the nearby object.
It would never ever set a circular orbital cycle with that object.
If one day the Moon would be disconnected from the earth gravity, it won't orbit around the Sun, but it would surly escape to the open space.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2020 12:48:24
You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.As I have already explained, the whole solar system (including all the planets and moons) has been created at the same moment near the SMBH from the same matter that was created in by the accretion disc. So we must call it excretion disc.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2020 13:02:27
As I have already explained,That's an assertion, not an explanation.
To claim that the whole (rather diverse) solar system was created at the same time is absurd.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2020 13:06:44
I would like to add the following:No, it wouldn't.
If one day the Moon would be disconnected from the earth gravity, it won't orbit around the Sun, but it would surly escape to the open space.
Escape velocity from the Sun (starting from near the Earth's orbit) is 42 km/sec
The Earth's orbital velocity is 29 km/s
And the Moon's is about 1 km/s
You can't add 29 and 1 to give an answer bigger than 42.
Try doing science; it can be very rewarding.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2020 19:51:17
To claim that the whole (rather diverse) solar system was created at the same time is absurd.Ok
I disagree with this message and you reject most/all of my messages.
Stars, Planets and moons can ONLY be created in a gas cloud near a massive object as a SMBH at the same moment.
The current theory about the following star Population is a clearly incorrect:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Population-I
Population I objects are thought to have originated from interstellar gas that has undergone various kinds of processes, including supernova explosions, which enriched the constituent matter.
This idea is totally incorrect!
The matter that had been ejected outwards to the open space due to supernova would NEVER EVER be reused to form new star.
It would become a star dust. No more no less. It also might fall on some existing star or planet, but it can't be used to create new star.
It is also stated: "All known Population I members occur near and in the arms of the Milky Way system and other spiral galaxies"
The Solar system is located at a spiral arm. So, do we have any real observation to confirm that understanding, or is it one more wishful list of our scientists?
Just a few questions with regards to spiral galaxy:
1. Do you confirm that in the bulge the stars orbit at all directions?
2. If so, how could it be that when we move away from the Bulge (in the direction of the bar and ring) suddenly the galaxy gets a disc shape?
3. How the Bar and the ring had been created?
4. Why the thickness of the spiral arms at the innermost side (ring) is about 3,000 LY, while at the outermost is only 400Ly?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2020 20:15:58
I disagree with this message and you reject most/all of my messages.Your disagreement with reasonable things is... troubling.
Have you seen anyone about it?
Do you accept that 29000 and 1000 isn't 42000?
The matter that had been ejected outwards to the open space due to supernova would NEVER EVER be reused to form new star.Is that assertion made on the same basis that you think the Moon does not exist?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/08/2020 22:52:21
So, the moon and the earth were born as a compact gas clouds.
How did those two gas clouds come to orbit each other if you claim that objects cannot capture each other gravitationally?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/08/2020 18:39:17
How did those two gas clouds come to orbit each other if you claim that objects cannot capture each other gravitationally?Do you really have an interest in theory D or do you wish to show why whatever I say is just incorrect?
So, lm going to answer your question, however, let me first show now why our scientists don't have a basic clue how stars and planets have been formed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
1. collapse and form star - "Star formation is the process by which dense regions within molecular clouds in interstellar space, sometimes referred to as "stellar nurseries" or "star-forming regions", collapse and form stars.[".
So our hope that somehow dense regions within molecular clouds would collapse and form star.
The idea is as follow:
Cloud collapse
"An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force."
"Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy.[16] "
If that is the case, then it is clear that it won't be collapsed.
However, they have a brilliant idea:
If a cloud is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse"
This is a pure fiction an imagination.
There is no boarder for a gas cloud. Therefore if there is a gas in a cloud, that gas should expand outwards and not inwards.
Hence, if due to some imagination, after the big bang there was a dense gas could, then the internal gas in that cloud must be evaporated and expand with all the expanding Universe. Not even a single star could be created.
Why a cloud would be massive enough to collapse?
In our imaginary BBT universe of inflation and expansion every moment later, there is less density everywhere. Therefore, if there is a gas cloud, it must expand and not collapse.
A gas cloud would never ever collapse only by its internal forces.
The only way to start the star formation activity is by external forces as I will explain later on.
2. Atom creation -Our scientists claim that when the universe was at age of 380 the energy in the whole Universe had been converted to real Atoms. This is for sure one more imagination as energy can't be converted to atoms without a transformation process as electromagnetic field. So I claim that without electromagnetic, not even a single Hydrogen atom could be created!
3. Universe size - At that age of 380 My, the early Universe was very compact. Now try to estimate the matter in whole Universe. Try to set all the Galaxis/stars/atoms in the Universe in that compact size. You would find that even if we set the galaxies Back to back, we need much more space than that compact size.
So, 13.8 BY ago our Universe was surly much bigger than any sort of a compact imagination size.
4. Binary Star: "Star formation theory, as well as accounting for the formation of a single star, must also account for the statistics of binary stars and the initial mass function."
Now it is more complicate.
You wish that this somehow "collapse process" would also create binary stars.
How could it be?
If the matter had been collapsed (to the center I assume), then why it could form more than one single star?
5. Formation of Rocky planets
This is even much more complicated process:
"According to the solar nebular disk model, rocky planets form in the inner part of the protoplanetary disk, within the frost line, where the temperature is high enough to prevent condensation of water ice and other substances into grains.[62]"
In one hand they hope that the matter should collapse and then they claim that there is a protoplanetary disc. How could it be?
If the matter collapse it falls in and there is no disc.
I have already explained clearly that matter would never ever move in to a lower radius or disc and get higher orbital velocity.
This is a pure imagination.
So, if our scientists claim for collapse, than the matter should collapse in and set one single star. No more no less.
Based on the collapse idea, not even a single rocky planet would be created.
6. Rocky planetesimals -
It is stated: "This results in coagulation of purely rocky grains and later in the formation of rocky planetesimals.[c][62] Such conditions are thought to exist in the inner 3–4 AU part of the disk of a Sun-like star.[2] After small planetesimals—about 1 km in diameter—have formed by one way or another, runaway accretion begins.[18]
Sorry again. Not even a single rocky planetesimal could be created in that accretion disc.
Do we see any planetesimal in the accretion disc? Actually, that runway accretion Process/disc would blow away any object that would be there. We see it clearly in the accretion disc around the SMBH. Even the atoms had been broken to particles. So, if there is any sort of accretion, nothing would be created there.
7. Mass increases - "It is called runaway because the mass growth rate is proportional to R4~M4/3, where R and M are the radius and mass of the growing body, respectively.[63] The specific (divided by mass) growth accelerates as the mass increases"
Sorry, they can dream about mass increases, but that mass wouldn't be able to form even one single moon around the Sun.
8.Time and distance - " This leads to the preferential growth of larger bodies at the expense of smaller ones.[18] The runaway accretion lasts between 10,000 and 100,000 years and ends when the largest bodies exceed approximately 1,000 km in diameter.[18]
Is it real? How do they know the time, while we clearly know that the accretion disc must break down any object there?
9. Slowing of the accretion - "Slowing of the accretion is caused by gravitational perturbations by large bodies on the remaining planetesimals.[18][63] In addition, the influence of larger bodies stops further growth of smaller bodies.[18]"
Ok
Now they do understand that in order to get an object they must slow down the accretion.
So, how could they claim that something could be created due to accretion?
It seems to me that they play with the nature as they wish.
They have started with the idea that somehow matter would collapse and set runaway accretion and then it is requested to slow down.
All of that by the internal forces of the gas itself.
Wow.
This is really unbelievable.
I can go on and on in that article just to find that all of that explanation is totally unrealistic!!!
10. For example - A planet that had been created by rocky matter would never ever form a nice ball shape.
11. There is another issue - That planet can't be created directly from the matter of the Big bang. We all know that after the Big bang we have only got Hydrogen atoms. So, theoretically, all the rocky matter in our planets had been created from the matter that had been ejected from a dead star by a supernova.
And how many supernovas do we see?
Do you really believe that the whole planets and moons in the solar system had been created from supernova?
However, If there was a supernova, then don't you agree that all the matter had been ejected in all directions at ultra high velocity.
12. Actually, they claim that the whole solar system had been created from the same gas cloud.
So, let's assume that somehow there was some rocky matter in that cloud. In this case, why that heavy matter didn't collapse inwards first?
Why do they wish to believe that the light gas as Hydrogen and helium would collapse in and set the Sun, while all the heavy rocky matter would stay outside just to bring us our wish and form planets and moons?
Sorry, that story is absolutely none realistic
Once you understand the difficulties in that process, I will explain how the whole Solar system was really created..
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/08/2020 19:53:24
Do you really have an interest in theory D or do you wish to show why whatever I say is just incorrect?Those are the same thing.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/08/2020 20:28:08
Therefore if there is a gas in a cloud, that gas should expand outwards and not inwards.
The Sun is made of gas, but it has a practically constant size because it's in a state of equilibrium. It isn't expanding outward. So your claim is observably incorrect.
Your post is full of ignorance and doesn't address my question at all.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/08/2020 20:29:45
Therefore if there is a gas in a cloud, that gas should expand outwardsCan you breathe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/08/2020 09:13:33
Don't you agree that there is still a difference between gas cloud to star (Sun)?Therefore if there is a gas in a cloud, that gas should expand outwards and not inwards.
The Sun is made of gas, but it has a practically constant size because it's in a state of equilibrium. It isn't expanding outward. So your claim is observably incorrect.
How can you compare between the two structures?
Let me ask you the following:
Do you agree that the same gas could that formed the Sun had also formed the rocky planets and moons?
Hence, do you confirm that the same matter that was used to form the Sun, also used to form the rocky planets?
If you agree with the above,
1. How could it be that the light molecular as Helium and Hydrogen had collapsed inwards and formed the Sun at the center of the gas cloud, while the heavier rocky matter including Iron and silicon left outwards in order to be used for the rocky planets?
2. How binary/triple star system (or more that that) could be formed while the matter collapsed inwards to the center? Why not just one single star per gas cloud?
3. If the heavy matter in our universe had been formed by a supernova of a death star, how that matter that was ejected outwards at almost the speed of light could set any sort of high dense gas cloud?
4. Our scientists claim that at the maximum, a supernova could create Iron (atomicnumber - 26).
https://hobart.k12.in.us/ksms/PeriodicTable/atomicnumber.htm
So, how can we explain the source of all the heavier matter (above that atomicnumber as copper, gold, platinum...) in our planet?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2020 12:01:08
Don't you agree that there is still a difference between gas cloud to star (Sun)?Not much.
How can you compare between the two structures?
Well, one is a cloud of gas, and so is the other.
Hence, do you confirm that the same matter that was used to form the Sun, also used to form the rocky planets?Plainly no.
The Sun is almost entirely hydrogen, the Earth is largely things like iron and oxygen.
Why did you even ask that?
So, how can we explain the source of all the heavier matter (above that atomicnumber as copper, gold, platinum...) in our planet?Ash from previous supernovae.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/08/2020 17:19:00
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/08/2020 04:05:49
SorryQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:13:33Not much.
Don't you agree that there is still a difference between gas cloud to star (Sun)?
How can you compare between the two structures?
Well, one is a cloud of gas, and so is the other.
There is big difference between gas cloud to star.
Let's use the G1 and G2 as an example:
https://www.cnet.com/news/strange-unknown-objects-found-orbiting-milky-ways-black-hole/
"These objects look like gas and behave like stars," said Andrea Ghez, an astronomer at UCLA and co-author of the new study, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday."
So, what does it mean: "These objects look like gas and behave like stars?"
Don't you agree that this statement by itself shows that there must be a difference between the two?
As you would surly reject my explanation, why don't you ask Mr Andrea Ghez for more explanation about the real differences?
Are you sure about it?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:13:33Plainly no.
Hence, do you confirm that the same matter that was used to form the Sun, also used to form the rocky planets?
The Sun is almost entirely hydrogen, the Earth is largely things like iron and oxygen.
Why did you even ask that?
So, based on your explanation, The sun had been created from a Hydrogen/helium gas cloud, which must be different from the rocky cloud that formed the planets and moons.
We also know that the matter in the Sun had not been created directly from the early hydrogen after the Big bang.
So, the gas cloud that formed the Sun had got its matter from early formed star that lost its life by supernova.
However, you claim that the gas cloud that had formed the rocky planets must be "Ash from previous supernovae". So one supernova is not good enough for the rocky planets:
Therefore, the Rocky gas cloud that formed the planets gets it matter from at least one more cycle of supernova:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:13:33Ash from previous supernovae.
So, how can we explain the source of all the heavier matter (above that atomicnumber as copper, gold, platinum...) in our planet?
Do you really believe in that imagination?
Did you had the chance to read an article about the "Formation and evolution of the Solar System"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
"The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.5 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed."
In this article they clearly discuss about the same giant molecular cloud that form the Sun and all planets and moons.
However, I agree with you that this could set a severe contradiction as you have stated:
"The Sun is almost entirely hydrogen, the Earth is largely things like iron and oxygen"
That shows that you and our scientists - all of you, don't have a basic clue how it really works!
I still don't see any explanation as to how one gas cloud can come to orbit another if you disallow gravitational capture.
The explanation is just in front of our eyes.
It is called G1, G2 and all the other G gas clouds:
https://www.cnet.com/news/strange-unknown-objects-found-orbiting-milky-ways-black-hole/
"The nature of these so-called "G sources" is controversial. Some astronomers believe they're gas clouds, others contend they look more like strange stars shrouded in dust. In a new study, astronomers reveal they have detected four more of these mysterious objects which look very similar to G1 and G2 -- and suggest they are members of a new class of cosmic phenomena."
So, we see there a clear indication for star formation in those gas clouds.
That process could work as those gas clouds orbit a very massive object that is called - Sagittarius A*
"At the heart of the Milky Way, there's a monster black hole with a mass 4 million times that of the sun, Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*). In the last decade, scientists looking in the black hole's cosmic neighborhood saw two peculiar objects, which seemed to be orbiting the black hole. They were dubbed G1 and G2. "
Our scientist assume that those gas cloud is used as a snack for the SMBH. However, this is a fatal error:
"In 2014, astronomers observing G2 watched on as it barreled directly towards Sgr A*. Astronomers predicted G2 was a gas cloud and so it would offer the massive black hole a snack -- as it approached it would be ripped apart and gas would fall into the black hole. But... that's not what happened. G2 got perilously close to Sgr A* and survived, prompting a rethink about what it could be. "
The SMBH has no intention to eat even one atom from that gas cloud.
Our scientists don't understand that the molecular stream that had been ejected from the accretion disc is the "sh1t" of the SMBH. It already eat one particle for any one that it ejects into the accretion disc. No one is going to eat its own "sh1t" (even if we called it a monster' SMBH).
The Molecular gas cloud in G1/G2 includes all the variety of atomicnumber atoms (as Hydrogen, gold..) and any Molecular as water that we wish.
So, we don't really need any sort of supernova to create higher atomicnumber. The accretion disc can do it much better than any supernova.
So, how it really works?
1. Each G gas cloud orbit at different inclinations
"I think the gas streamer hypothesis worked well when we just had G1 and G2, but with 6 objects, orbiting at very different inclinations, this hypothesis is harder to apply," said Anna Ciurlo, an astronomer at UCLA and first author on the new study."
2. The gas cloud comes very close to the SMBH:
"In 2014, astronomers observing G2 watched on as it barreled directly towards Sgr A*."
That sets severe pressure to compress the gas cloud and starts the activity of "gravitational collapse" and "runway accretion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
"In triggered star formation, one of several events might occur to compress a molecular cloud and initiate its gravitational collapse."
3. However, the main activity takes place at the middle region of the gas cloud.
"During the collapse, the density of the cloud increases towards the center and thus the middle region becomes optically opaque first. This occurs when the density is about 10−13 g / cm3. A core region, called the First Hydrostatic Core, forms where the collapse is essentially halted. It continues to increase in temperature as determined by the virial theorem. The gas falling toward this opaque region collides with it and creates shock waves that further heat the core.[29]"
In this middle region all/most of the star formation activity takes place!!!
So, the matter is concentrated and compressed at that middle region of the gas cloud and form simultaneously several stars system including all the needed planets and moons to each system from the same matter.
That explains the Binary/Multi star system in our galaxy.
So, at the center of the Gas cloud there is almost no activity and almost no matter. However, all the new created stars orbits around that center while that center orbits around the SMBH. This is a key element in the Star motions in the galaxy.
4. How those stars could be formed from the compressed matter?
"As it collapses, a molecular cloud breaks into smaller and smaller pieces in a hierarchical manner, until the fragments reach stellar mass. In each of these fragments, the collapsing gas radiates away the energy gained by the release of gravitational potential energy. As the density increases, the fragments become opaque and are thus less efficient at radiating away their energy. This raises the temperature of the cloud and inhibits further fragmentation. The fragments now condense into rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos.[24]"
However, that activity can't work under a constant pursue or accretion. as it is stated:
"When the surrounding gas and dust envelope disperses and accretion process stops, the star is considered a pre-main-sequence star (PMS star)."
So, the movement of the gas cloud around the SMBH give it the compress/decompress that is needed for the forming activity.
Therefore, as the G cloud comes very close to the SMBH is also moves far away from it:
"The orbital periods of the new objects range between 170 years and 1,600 years."
Therefore, we get the difference is the accretions/ compressions that is vital for the following activity:
"When the core temperature reaches about 2000 K, the thermal energy dissociates the H2 molecules.[29] This is followed by the ionization of the hydrogen and helium atoms. These processes absorb the energy of the contraction, allowing it to continue on timescales comparable to the period of collapse at free fall velocities.[30] After the density of infalling material has reached about 10−8 g / cm3, that material is sufficiently transparent to allow energy radiated by the protostar to escape. The combination of convection within the protostar and radiation from its exterior allow the star to contract further.[29] This continues until the gas is hot enough for the internal pressure to support the protostar against further gravitational collapse—a state called hydrostatic equilibrium. When this accretion phase is nearly complete, the resulting object is known as a protostar.[4]"
5. Planets and moons
At the end of this forming activity process we get a full solar system.
So, the whole solar system had been created at the same moment and from the same matter (in that gas cloud)
Therefore, The Earth and its Moon were a hot gas objects at their first day.
98% from their mass was based on light atoms as hydrogen and Helium.
Therefore, they were very massive at that time and therefore, the gravity force between the earth moon was much stronger than the Sun Moon. Therefore, the moon orbits around the earth instead directly around the Sun.
However, due to their low gravity force, they have lost most of those light atoms to space.
We are lucky that the earth could maintain its water. We know that Mars had lost most of its water.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/08/2020 05:02:41
So, what does it mean: "These objects look like gas and behave like stars?"
One is a subset of the other. Stars are gas, but not all gas is stars. If he's contrasting the two, then obviously he's talking about gas clouds that aren't stars. The Sun is a spherical gas cloud bound by its own gravity.
The SMBH has no intention to eat even one atom from that gas cloud.
No one is going to eat its own "sh1t"
You need to stop anthropomorphizing things that aren't alive.
So, the matter is concentrated and compressed at that middle region of the gas cloud and form simultaneously several stars system including all the needed planets and moons to each system from the same matter.
That's your explanation for how they formed, but it doesn't explain how those moons came to orbit those planets. Remember, you don't allow for gravitational capture.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/08/2020 06:04:09
You need to stop anthropomorphizing things that aren't alive.The SMBH has the ability to create new particles pair, eat one and eject one.
It doesn't need any help from any other object to increase its mass and also to create stars and BH.
Our scientists called it "monster"
Therefore, I consider it as a "living object" or "monster" as you wish.
That's your explanation for how they formed, but it doesn't explain how those moons came to orbit those planets. Remember, you don't allow for gravitational capture.Yes it is
As I have stated, the forming activity takes place at the middle region of the gas cloud.
At the first stage millions of stellar embryos have been created:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
"As it collapses, a molecular cloud breaks into smaller and smaller pieces in a hierarchical manner, until the fragments reach stellar mass. In each of these fragments, the collapsing gas radiates away the energy gained by the release of gravitational potential energy. As the density increases, the fragments become opaque and are thus less efficient at radiating away their energy. This raises the temperature of the cloud and inhibits further fragmentation. The fragments now condense into rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos.[24]"
Each one of those stellar embryos could potentially become a small planet or moon.
Those stellar embryos orbits around each other.
Each time that the gas cloud gets closer to the SMBH they get the requested momentum/compress that forces them to merge with each other. Over time, most of them will merge and form the main objects. However, as we all know - there is no 100% efficiency in the nature. Therefore, not all the stellar embryos would be merged with the main objects
Some of them would continue to orbit around each other while their common mass point would orbit around the main object.
At the end of the forming activity process, we would call the main objects - Stars. The massive stellar embryos would be called planets and those relatively small stellar embryos that orbits around the planets (massive stellar embryos) would be called moons.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2020 11:20:12
Don't you agree that this statement by itself shows that there must be a difference between the two?No.
It just sloppy writing .
It should say "like most gas".
If you don't think they are gases then you are stuck with solids or liquids as your only options- too hot for a B-E condensate and plasmas are a sub-set of gases.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2020 11:21:36
No one is going to eat its own "sh1t" (even if we called it a monster' SMBH).Ignoring the unscientific anthropomorphisation, rabbits do exactly that. Why shouldn't monster black holes?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/08/2020 16:03:56
Don't you agree that this statement by itself shows that there must be a difference between the two?No.
It just sloppy writing .
It should say "like most gas".
If you don't think they are gases then you are stuck with solids or liquids as your only options- too hot for a B-E condensate and plasmas are a sub-set of gases.
In the article about Gas cloud it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
"The fragments now condense into rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos.[24]"
So, do you accept the idea that in the G gas cloud there are "rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos"?
As you insist that a star acts as a gas cloud, do we see any rotating spheres of gas in the Sun?
Monster black holes don't eat their sh1t as nothing could penetrate (from outside) the mighty magnetic felid that is used as a shield around it.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:49Ignoring the unscientific anthropomorphisation, rabbits do exactly that. Why shouldn't monster black holes?
No one is going to eat its own "sh1t" (even if we called it a monster' SMBH).
That magnetic field boosts any nearby molecular to its poles at almost 0.8 c.
Therefore, we clearly see those jet molecular streams at up to 27,000 Ly above/below the galactic disc of the SMBH.
So, if any atom from the nearby gas cloud would dare to come too close to the SMBH, than before it could finish to say "rabbit" it would be ejected at 0.8c into that molecular jet stream above/below the galactic disc.
Hence, the SMBH ONLY eats one particle from the new created pair.
It might not sound as a real food for this mighty monster.
However, we see a similar phenomenon also in our planet.
The biggest animal in our planet - the Whale form the North Sea, eats micro organism – (but many of them).
So, if the whale could be so big by eating only those micro organisms, why the SMBH can't also be so big by only eating the smallest new created particles (but also many of them)?
However, there is key advantage for the SMBH monster over the whale.
It acts as the Ultimate chef in the universe as it creates its own food without any need for any product from outside .
It doesn't need to find a sea or space with rich micro organism.
As long as it keeps its mighty electromagnetic filed, new particles would be popped up to be eaten.
Hence, wherever it goes, the food is always available for him.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2020 17:20:23
Monster black holes don't eat their sh1t as nothing could penetrate (from outside) the mighty magnetic felid that is used as a shield around it.Why would a magnetic field stop hydrogen or helium- the two commonest elements in the Universe?
Also, if the field stopped things entering then it would also stop things leaving.
You must be starting to realise that just making up stuff won't work here.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/08/2020 17:29:15
It doesn't need any help from any other object to increase its mass
Which, of course, violates conservation of mass because mass cannot be created...
Those stellar embryos orbits around each other.
Yes, but how did they come to orbit each other?
do we see any rotating spheres of gas in the Sun?
The Sun is a rotating sphere of gas...
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/08/2020 18:06:32
Sure. The whole Sun acts as a single rotating sphere of gas. So only one rotating sphere of gas could exists at the Sun..QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:03:56The Sun is a rotating sphere of gas...
do we see any rotating spheres of gas in the Sun?
However, In a Gas cloud there could be millions of rotating spheres of gas.
That is the biggest difference.
Due to the idea that all/most of them orbit at the middle region of the Gas could and due to the ultra high momentum that they get as the gas approach the SMBH.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:04:09
Those stellar embryos orbits around each other.
Yes, but how did they come to orbit each other?
if the field stopped things entering then it would also stop things leaving.You are absolutely correct.
The magnetic field grab any particle/molecular from any direction (inwards or outwards).
Any particle/molecular that is ejected from the accretion disc is considered as coming from inside. Any molecular that comes from a nearby gas cloud is considered as coming from outside.
They would face the same destiny.
The Magnetic field would grab all of them (from any direction) and boosts them high above its poles.
Therefore, nothing would go outside without first boosted into that molecular jet stream and in the same token nothing would cross that magnetic field from outside as it also must be boosted into that molecular jet stream.
One law for all particles/molecular from any direction.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2020 18:13:24
You are absolutely correct.
The magnetic field grab any particle/molecular from any direction (inwards or outwards).
Any particle/molecular that is ejected from the accretion disc is considered as coming from inside. Any molecular that comes from a nearby gas cloud is considered as coming from outside.
They would face the same destiny.
The Magnetic field would grab all of them (from any direction) and boosts them high above its poles.
Therefore, nothing would go outside without first boosted into that molecular jet stream and in the same token nothing would cross that magnetic field from outside as it also must be boosted into that molecular jet stream.
One law for all particles/molecular from any direction.
You missed the important bit.
Why would a magnetic field stop hydrogen or helium- the two commonest elements in the Universe?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/08/2020 21:14:26
That is the biggest difference.
Only because of the size difference. Your statement that a gas cloud must expand still ignores the fact that the Sun is made of gas and isn't expanding.
Due to the idea that all/most of them orbit at the middle region of the Gas could and due to the ultra high momentum that they get as the gas approach the SMBH.
You realize that this is like me asking, "How do they orbit?" and you answering with "because they orbit", don't you? It's not at all helpful. You're not telling me how they got from a state of not orbiting to a state of orbiting.
The magnetic field grab any particle/molecular from any direction (inwards or outwards).
How is that supposed to stop neutrons or neutrinos?
Therefore, nothing would go outside without first boosted into that molecular jet stream
If that was true, then there shouldn't be an accretion disk at all. All of the particles created by the black hole should be shot off in the form of polar jets.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2020 07:37:57
Thanks for this excellent message.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:06:32If that was true, then there shouldn't be an accretion disk at all. All of the particles created by the black hole should be shot off in the form of polar jets.
Therefore, nothing would go outside without first boosted into that molecular jet stream
I also asked myself the same question.
The answer is based on balance between the forces.
If we could monitor the accretion disc we should find that it is actually a ring.
In the inner most radius of that ring, we should find only particles that had been ejected outwards from the SMBH.
Those particles should orbit almost at the speed of light.
Therefore, the SMBH' magnetic field can't grab those particles that orbit at that ultra velocity and under the mighty SMBH' gravity force that exists at that short radius
However, as they move outwards, they are transformed into real atoms and molecular, their velocity is decreasing and also the SMBH' gravity force is decreasing due to longer radius.
At the outer most ring, the orbital velocioty is minimal (0.3c), the radius is maximal and the SMBH' gravity force is minimal.
At that stage, the magnetic field should be strong enough to hold all of those new created atoms, molecular and left over particles (including Hydrogen and Helium, water and even neutrons or neutrinos) and push them all upwards/downwards in the direction of the poles at almost 0.8c till a distance of 27,000 above/below the SMBH' poles.
That shows the mighty power of the SMBH' magnetic field.
Actually, without the lifting power of the magnetic field, those molecular/particles in the accretion disc should continue to orbit at much longer radius while they decrease their orbital velocity.
We clearly see moons that orbit at about 1Km/s around their planets. So how could it be that the plasma in the accretion disc can't orbit at 0.1c or 0.001c at longer radius?
Therefore, the maximal radius of the accretion disc shows us the breaking point where the magnetic lifting force is stronger than the bonding gravity force.
We clearly see them all in the Molecular jet stream.
https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg
https://insider.si.edu/2012/05/ghostly-gamma-ray-beams-blast-from-milky-ways-center/
This artist’s conception shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. Previously known gamma-ray bubbles are shown in purple. The bubbles and jets suggest that our galactic center was much more active in the past than it is today. (Image by David A. Aguilar)
Our scientists don't understand that this jet stream is due to the SMBH' magnetic filed.
Therefore, they claim: "The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused."
So, let me tell them: It is like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused as it is due to magnetic field!!!
At least they confirm that: "The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center". As the plasma is only located at the accretion disc, than this statement is Ok with me.
They also estimate that in the molecular jet stream/cloud there is about 10,000 sum mass:
""Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required."
So, as 98% of the Sun is made out of Hydrogen and Helium, and as they even call it molecular jet/cloud, it is quite clear that the hydrogen and helium are surly there.
So, the SMBH' electromagnetic force doesn't need our confirmation to grab those light atoms and particles:
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:06:32How is that supposed to stop neutrons or neutrinos?
The magnetic field grab any particle/molecular from any direction (inwards or outwards).
Why would a magnetic field stop hydrogen or helium- the two commonest elements in the Universe?It does it with or without our permission.
Unless, we can prove that there are no hydrogen, helium, neutrons or neutrinos in that molecular jet stream/cloud at the poles above/below the galactic disc.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2020 11:27:22
Do you think that iron needs our permission to stick to a magnet?
neither hydrogen nor helium is affected by a magnetic field.
So, try giving a sensible answer to this
You missed the important bit.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:20:23
Why would a magnetic field stop hydrogen or helium- the two commonest elements in the Universe?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2020 15:04:00
Therefore, the SMBH' magnetic field can't grab those particles that orbit at that ultra velocity and under the mighty SMBH' gravity force that exists at that short radius
So now you've changed your mind about the magnetic field being able to stop anything. Now you say that particles that are moving quickly enough can get past the magnetic field.
It does it with or without our permission.
Do you even know what a magnetic field does?
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2020 05:25:52
No.Therefore, the SMBH' magnetic field can't grab those particles that orbit at that ultra velocity and under the mighty SMBH' gravity force that exists at that short radius
So now you've changed your mind about the magnetic field being able to stop anything. Now you say that particles that are moving quickly enough can get past the magnetic field.
I claim that it is due to balance between Gravity force to Magnetic force and not between the orbital velocity to the pull up velocity.
The gravity force is reducing as the particles in the plasma drifts outwards in the accretion disc.
At some point (let's call it - the "breaking point radius") the magnetic force is strong enough to overcome the gravity force and pull the particles (that had been transformed by now to molecular) upwards/downwards to the magnetic poles.
Therefore it is stated in the article:
https://insider.si.edu/2012/05/ghostly-gamma-ray-beams-blast-from-milky-ways-center/
"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center"
Do you even know what a magnetic field does?Don't you agree that the following molecular jet straem/beam is due to Magnetic field?
https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg
If no:
What kind of force could set those two beams?
"The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA’s Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane."
What kind of force could squirte out the plasma from the galactic center/accretion disc?
What kind of force can boost that plasma/molecular upwards/downwards at 0.8c in the direction of the magnetic Poles?
What kind of force works "like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused."
Don't you finely agree that the magnetic force is the ONLY force that can do so?
Don't you also agree that this molecular jet beam/cloud is full with Hydrogen?
So, if it is full with hydrogen and the only force that can do it is magnetic force, why you still assume that the magnetic force can't grab Hydrogen or Helium from the plasma in the accretion disc?
Why the maximal radius of the plasma at the accretion disc/ring is the "breaking point radius"?
Why it can't extend much longer than that?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2020 08:05:35
The gravity force is reducing as the particles in the plasma drifts outwards in the accretion disc.
So does the magnetic force. As a matter of fact, the force exerted by a magnetic field falls off faster than the force exerted by a gravitational field. Magnetic fields obey the inverse cube law, whereas gravity obeys the inverse square law. Doubling your distance from a magnetic field source will cause you to feel 23 = 8 times less force than before, whereas doubling your distance from a gravitational field source will cause you to feel 22 = 4 times less force than before.
This means that you still have a problem. Both the magnetic field and the gravitational field will become stronger as you approach the black hole, but the magnetic field strength will increase at a faster rate than the gravitational field strength will. So if the magnetic field isn't strong enough to overwhelm the gravitational field right at the event horizon (where the particles are being formed), then it will be even less capable of overwhelming it at larger distances. This gives you two options:
(1) The particles formed at the event horizon are immediately funneled into polar jets, thus preventing an accretion disk from forming (remember, the magnetic field of your hypothetical magnetized black hole is going to be at its maximum possible strength right at the event horizon), or
(2) The magnetic field is weak enough even at the event horizon to allow particles to move through it without all of them being funneled into jets. If it's weak enough to allow particles out, then it is weak enough to allow particles in.
Don't you also agree that this molecular jet beam/cloud is full with Hydrogen?
I was talking about neutrons and neutrinos, but hydrogen and helium clouds that aren't hot enough to be ionized shouldn't have any problems passing through that magnetic field.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2020 09:56:05
So, if it is full with hydrogen and the only force that can do it is magnetic force, why you still assume that the magnetic force can't grab Hydrogen or Helium from the plasma in the accretion disc?I am not making an "assumption" that hydrogen isn't magnetic; I am making the observation that hydrogen is not magnetic.
You, on the other hand, are making the assumption that you are right, based on the assumption that you are right.
Only one of us is doing science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2020 19:49:24
The gravity force is reducing as the particles in the plasma drifts outwards in the accretion disc.
So does the magnetic force. As a matter of fact, the force exerted by a magnetic field falls off faster than the force exerted by a gravitational field. Magnetic fields obey the inverse cube law, whereas gravity obeys the inverse square law. Doubling your distance from a magnetic field source will cause you to feel 23 = 8 times less force than before, whereas doubling your distance from a gravitational field source will cause you to feel 22 = 4 times less force than before.
This means that you still have a problem. Both the magnetic field and the gravitational field will become stronger as you approach the black hole, but the magnetic field strength will increase at a faster rate than the gravitational field strength will. So if the magnetic field isn't strong enough to overwhelm the gravitational field right at the event horizon (where the particles are being formed), then it will be even less capable of overwhelming it at larger distances. This gives you two options:
(1) The particles formed at the event horizon are immediately funneled into polar jets, thus preventing an accretion disk from forming (remember, the magnetic field of your hypothetical magnetized black hole is going to be at its maximum possible strength right at the event horizon), or
(2) The magnetic field is weak enough even at the event horizon to allow particles to move through it without all of them being funneled into jets. If it's weak enough to allow particles out, then it is weak enough to allow particles in.
Thanks Kryptid for the excellent question.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09677
"The most plausible theories for launching astrophysical jets rely on strong magnetic fields at the inner parts of the host accretion disks. An internal dynamo can in principle generate small scale magnetic fields in situ but generating a large scale field in a disk seems a difficult task in the dynamo theories."
So, they have an idea that: "An internal dynamo can in principle generate small scale magnetic fields.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.
Hence, there are two main sources of magnetic field: the SMBH and the accretion ring..
The meaning of that is as follow:
If we could eliminate the whole accretion disc and leave there only one particle orbiting at the same velocity as the plasma does. In this case, without the local magnetic bonding of the accretion ring, the gravity by itself would be too weak to hold that particle and it would be ejected outwards immediately.
Therefore, the accretion disc holds the particles in the ring by its local magnetic field..
If I understand it correctly, the total mass in the accretion ring is about three Sun mass.
So, the gravity force that works at the accretion ring is not based on a particle vs SMBH but a 3 Sun mass Vs SMBH.
I would compare this senario to the 3KPC ring in the Milky Way galaxy.
It is quite clear to me that if we would eliminate that 3KPC ring at leave there only one star (orbiting at the same velocity as the ring) this star would be ejected immediately outwards from the galaxy. (as there is no dark matter in our Universe)
So, as long as there is a local bonding between the objects in the ring, that ring can hold and keep all the objects in the orbital cycle.
Hence,iIn the 3KPC ring the bonding force between all the nearby stars is based on local gravity force, while the bonding force between the nearby particles in the accretion ring is local magnetic field/force.
The outcome is the same.
Actually, I'm quite sure that if we would try to find the requested SMBH mass that could hold a single particle in the accretion disc, we would find that it should be significant higher than the real mass of the SMBH.
I wonder why our scientists don't even try to verify this important issue.
With regards to the SMBH' magnetic field:
In order to understand it, let's use the following example from our sun:
"Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than thought"
https://www.thehansindia.com/hans/young-hans/suns-magnetic-field-is-ten-times-stronger-than-thought-516981
"The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study which can potentially change our understanding of the..."
So, if our scientists have made so severe mistake about the estimation of the Sun's magnetic field while we clearly can see that sun, how do we know that they don't have a sever mistake with the estimation of the SMBH magnetic field?
In any case, as we focus on the solar corona, we see that the matter that had been ejected from the sun is immediately captured by the magnetic field and form the famous corona structure.
In the same token, any particle that drifts away from the accretion ring is captured by the SMBH magnetic field.
Therefore, in order to answer your question:
The particles are drifting outwards in the accretion ring.
As long as they stay there, the SMBH' magnetic field can't pull them away.
However, as they get to the edge of the ring, the local magnetic bonding is quite weak. Therefore, they are easily disconnected from the ring and at that moment the SMBH' magnetic field grabs the ejected particles and boosts them at 0.8c in the direction of the poles.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2020 20:38:55
So, if our scientists have made so severe mistake about the estimation of the Sun's magnetic field while we clearly can see that sun, how do we know that they don't have a sever mistake with the estimation of the SMBH magnetic field?
As a matter of fact, they did make just such a mistake: the magnetic field around black holes are weaker than we previously thought they would be: https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni
The particles are drifting outwards in the accretion ring.
This in itself doesn't make sense in light of the other claims that you've made. You say that objects which are orbiting at "close range" must move towards the object that they are orbiting over time (like Phobos and Mars). The particles created by the black hole are created at the event horizon, which is as close as you can possibly get to the black hole without falling in immediately. So those particles would be at "close range" according your reasoning and thus should not be capable of drifting away from the black hole to form an accretion disk in the first place.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2020 21:02:20
SMBH' magnetic field grabs the ejected particlesMagnetic fields do not grab hydrogen or helium.
So, if it is full with hydrogen and the only force that can do it is magnetic force, why you still assume that the magnetic force can't grab Hydrogen or Helium from the plasma in the accretion disc?I am not making an "assumption" that hydrogen isn't magnetic; I am making the observation that hydrogen is not magnetic.
You, on the other hand, are making the assumption that you are right, based on the assumption that you are right.
Only one of us is doing science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/09/2020 19:10:13
Well, there is a big difference between new created particles Vs planets & moons.The particles are drifting outwards in the accretion ring.
This in itself doesn't make sense in light of the other claims that you've made. You say that objects which are orbiting at "close range" must move towards the object that they are orbiting over time (like Phobos and Mars). The particles created by the black hole are created at the event horizon, which is as close as you can possibly get to the black hole without falling in immediately. So those particles would be at "close range" according your reasoning and thus should not be capable of drifting away from the black hole to form an accretion disk in the first place.
A particle is deeply affected by magnetic field. Planets & moons needs to obey only to gravity force.
So, how it really works:
The new positive particles pair with opposite charged are created near the event horizon.
They get their mass due to the energy transformation by electromagnetic field
Without that electromagnetic field, there will be no new created partiacles.
At the first brief moment of creation they both move at the speed of light at the same direction - which is the orbital direction.
However, due to Lorentz force, one is directed inwards and is used to increase the mass of the SMBH, while the other one is ejected outwards.
That particle join the accretion ring from inside.
Actually the location of the accretion ring is dictated by the magnetic field.
It is located in the ring between the poles.
Therefore, with regards to your question - as the magnetic field takes control, there is no meaning for "short range".
As a matter of fact, they did make just such a mistake: the magnetic field around black holes are weaker than we previously thought they would be: https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygniIn this article it is stated:
"Black holes themselves don't have magnetic poles, and therefore don't generate magnetic fields."
I wonder why they claim such statement?
Do they really know how magnetic works at a BH or SMBH?
Why they can't estimate the poles could exchange at high frequency for example?
Actually, if BHs don't generate magnetic field, than how could it be that they have any sort of magnetic field?
They claim that:
"This means that the accretion disc corona magnetic fields are somehow generated by the space around a black hole - a process that is not well understood at this point."
So, now they hope that the space around the BH will generate a magnetic filed.
Is it real?
"The team's research did find that synchrotron processes dominated the cooling events, but could not provide data on what caused the particles to accelerate in the first place. It is, as one has come to expect from black holes, a finding that answers one question and turns up a lot more in need of further research."
"We need to understand black holes in general," said researcher Chris Packham of the University of Texas at San Antonio."
So, it is quite clear that our scientists have totally got lost.
In the following article it is also stated:
http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Integral/Monster_black_hole_wakes_up_after_26_years
"In this type of binary system, material flows from the star towards the black hole and gathers in a disc, where it is heated up, shining brightly at optical, ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths before spiralling into the black hole."
So, they take it for granted that the BH eats its star,.
However they don't give any real observation for this idea.
They just claim:
"The star is about half as massive as the Sun, and by studying the relative motion of the two objects in the binary system, it was determined that the companion must be a black hole, about twelve times more massive than the Sun."
They don't say what is the orbital radius and don't say if they really see matter that goes out from the star.
Somehow, they see flares - and they immediately believe that it's a diner time.
Sorry, once I could get the whole information about this binary star/BH, I would be able to give a real feedback on that.
In the article it is also stated:
"Previous research has shown that these coronae and the jets are controlled by powerful magnetic fields - and the stronger the magnetic fields close to the black hole's event horizon, the brighter its jets.
This is because the magnetic fields are thought to act like a synchrotron, accelerating the particles that travel through it."
In any case, this BH can't give any real indication if the Magnetic field of Milky Way' SMBH is low or high.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2020 19:18:57
29 + 1 is still not 42.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/09/2020 19:35:35
Hydrogen is still not magnetic.
29 + 1 is still not 42.
Let's assume that Hydrogen is not magnetic and see what might be the outcome:
So, based on your idea, hydrogen could fall in without any interruption from the magnetic field.
Please also remember that our scientists assume that the SMBH's magnetic field is very low
Now, please look at all the orbital cycles of G gas clouds and s stars around the SMBH.
You would see that none of them share the same orbital plane.
So, if all the hydrogen from S2 would fall in, don't you agree that they should set an accretion disc which is identical to the orbital plane of S2?
In the same token, if the hydrogen from S1 would fall in, they also should set an accretion disc which is identical to the orbital plane of S1.
As the orbital plane of S1 is clearly different from S2, than based on your message, we had to see many accretion rings at different plane.
Do we see it?
We clearly see that the accretion disc is directly located between the magnetic poles.
Based on your theory, the SMBH magnetic force is very weak and it can't have any impact on Hydrogen.
So, how could it be that the accretion ring directly between the magnetic poles?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2020 19:43:23
Based on your theory, the SMBH magnetic force is very weak and it can't have any impact on Hydrogen.
Hydrogen is not magnetic so hydrogen atoms can fall through a magnetic field.
Is hydrogen the only thing present?
Well, obviously, no.
In particular there are free electrons and protons present.
Their path is changed by a magnetic field.
And, given plenty of opportunities for interactions, they will affect the path of neutral hydrogen by banging into them.
Do you understand how that's not the same as this?
the mighty magnetic felid that is used as a shield around it.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/09/2020 20:52:21
A particle is deeply affected by magnetic field.
Only if it is electrically-charged. Neutrons and neutrinos aren't.
I wonder why they claim such statement?
Because black holes have no hair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2020 21:27:23
29 + 1 is still not 42.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/09/2020 17:54:07
That is correct.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:10:13Only if it is electrically-charged. Neutrons and neutrinos aren't.
A particle is deeply affected by magnetic field.
So, do you confirm that as all the matter in the plasma is electrically-charged? Therefore, even if it is hydrogen or helium it must be affected by the magnetic field?
With regards to the hypothetical idea about uncharged matter that falls in from outside.
Let's assume that it falls in. However, in this case it must set an ultra flare which we can observe from our location. So, don't you agree that in this process it should get high charge?
Hence, do you confirm that any uncharged matter that falls in should be charged (in that flare) as it falls in?
If you still insist for "no", then would you kindly answer my question:
please look at all the orbital cycles of G gas clouds and s stars around the SMBH.
You would see that none of them share the same orbital plane.
So, if all the hydrogen from S2 would fall in, don't you agree that they should set an accretion disc which is identical to the orbital plane of S2?
In the same token, if the hydrogen from S1 would fall in, they also should set an accretion disc which is identical to the orbital plane of S1.
As the orbital plane of S1 is clearly different from S2, than based on your message, we had to see many accretion rings at different plane.
Do we see it?
We clearly see that the accretion disc is directly located between the magnetic poles.
Based on your theory, the SMBH magnetic force is very weak and it can't have any impact on Hydrogen.
So, how could it be that the accretion ring directly between the magnetic poles?
"Black holes themselves don't have magnetic poles, and therefore don't generate magnetic fields."
I wonder why they claim such statement?
Because black holes have no hair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theoremIn the article it is stated that this idea is an assumption:
"There is still no rigorous mathematical proof of a general no-hair theorem, and mathematicians refer to it as the no-hair conjecture. "
So, how our scientists can claim that the BH/SMBH has no magnetic field based on this unproved assumption?
Actually, we clearly observe the impact of the magnetic field:
1. The Jet stream (Molecular are boosted at almost 0.8c up to 27,000 Ly directly above/below the magnetic poles.
Please remember that it is stated that it looks: "like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
So, as our scientists claim that there is no magnetic field, which kind of force can set this molecular jet stream?
2. Accretion disc - The accretion disc is located exactly between the magnetic poles?
So, if it is not magnetic field, why the accretion disc is located directly between the poles?
Which kind of force can set the accretion directly between the magnetic poles?
It almost seems to me that I ask:
What is green outside, red inside and has no seeds of watermelon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2020 18:00:28
So, do you confirm that as all the matter in the plasma is electrically-charged?No.
However, in this case it must set an ultra flareWhy?
If I chucked a handful of dust into the disk it would light up, but seeing it from Earth isn't realistic.
If you still insist for "no", then would you kindly answer my question:Your questions are based on a lack of understanding of science.
2. Accretion disc - The accretion disc is located exactly between the magnetic poles?Did it occur to you that the disk might be the cause of the magnetic field?
So, if it is not magnetic field, why the accretion disc is located directly between the poles?
Which kind of force can set the accretion directly between the magnetic poles?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/09/2020 21:02:55
So, do you confirm that as all the matter in the plasma is electrically-charged? Therefore, even if it is hydrogen or helium it must be affected by the magnetic field?
The plasma would very likely not have a net electric charge. Not all of the matter around a black hole is plasma either. There is a low density of neutral hydrogen molecules spread throughout space.
So, don't you agree that in this process it should get high charge?
No, because that would violate conservation of electric charge.
As the orbital plane of S1 is clearly different from S2, than based on your message, we had to see many accretion rings at different plane.
Do we see it?
I'm not sure that we've ever taken a high-resolution photograph of the accretion disk around a black hole, so such a thing may indeed be possible.
We clearly see that the accretion disc is directly located between the magnetic poles.
Evidence?
So, if it is not magnetic field, why the accretion disc is located directly between the poles?
Who said it is?
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/09/2020 03:27:09
Not all of the matter around a black hole is plasma either.Well, I only focus in the matter that exists in the accretion disc.
So, do you agree that in the accretion disc there is only hot plasma??
I do appreciate this honest reply.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:54:07I'm not sure that we've ever taken a high-resolution photograph of the accretion disk around a black hole, so such a thing may indeed be possible.
As the orbital plane of S1 is clearly different from S2, than based on your message, we had to see many accretion rings at different plane.
Do we see it?
So, if we assume that the accretion ring is horizontally and the next falling star orbits vertically, it is possible to get two accretion rings that are orthogonal to each other.
On the other hand, if the accretion ring orbits clockwise and the falling star is directly at the same plane but orbits on the other direction, than do you agree that the falling matter must set a new accretion ring on the other direction of the current accretion ring?
Do we see such observations?
Don't you confirm that the accretion ring is very thin, compressed and always orbits at the same direction?
So, don't you agree that this issue by itself is solid evidence that NOTHING could fall in?
Would you kindly answer the following?
1. The Jet stream (Molecular are boosted at almost 0.8c up to 27,000 Ly directly above/below the magnetic poles.
Please remember that it is stated that it looks: "like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
So... which kind of force could set this molecular jet stream?
Do you confirm that the only force that can set this molecular jet stream is magnetic force?
The Molecular jet stream is the Ultimate evidence.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:54:07Evidence?
We clearly see that the accretion disc is directly located between the magnetic poles.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/09/2020 05:51:03
So, do you agree that in the accretion disc there is only hot plasma??
In the inner portion, probably. In the outer portion, no.
On the other hand, if the accretion ring orbits clockwise and the falling star is directly at the same plane but orbits on the other direction, than do you agree that the falling matter must set a new accretion ring on the other direction of the current accretion ring?
Maybe, assuming the two rings are sufficiently distant from each other not to collide.
Do we see such observations?
Don't you confirm that the accretion ring is very thin, compressed and always orbits at the same direction?
I already told you that I doubt we have any photographs at high enough resolution to see that.
So, don't you agree that this issue by itself is solid evidence that NOTHING could fall in?
No.
Do you confirm that the only force that can set this molecular jet stream is magnetic force?
That is the consensus, yes.
The Molecular jet stream is the Ultimate evidence.
...how?
The rings of Saturn are between its poles too, but that doesn't have anything to do with Saturn's magnetic field (the rings are made of ice).
By the way, how do you explain the observation of stars and black holes orbiting each other where the black hole is sucking streams of gas from the star into an accretion disk if you claim that the accretion disk actually comes out of the black hole itself?
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/09/2020 21:03:34
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09That is the consensus, yes.
Do you confirm that the only force that can set this molecular jet stream is magnetic force?
So you agree that there is high possibility that the only force which can set this molecular jet stream is magnetic force.
In this case, don't you agree that the jet stream must be fully aligned with the magnetic poles?
So, we have clear indications for the magnetic poles directions.
https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg
Therefore, as long as the accretion disc orbits at the galactic plane, than it is considered as orbiting between the galactic poles.
Therefore, I have stated that the jet stream is ultimate evidence.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09...how?
The Molecular jet stream is the Ultimate evidence.
The rings of Saturn are between its poles too, but that doesn't have anything to do with Saturn's magnetic field (the rings are made of ice).
You can't compare between rings of Saturn to the accretion ring.
Those rings of Saturn had been created by broken moon/moons.
The accretion ring is made out of new created matter/plasma.
Why are you so sure about it?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09In the inner portion, probably. In the outer portion, no.
So, do you agree that in the accretion disc there is only hot plasma??
How can we see the inner portion of the accretion disc while we both located at the galactic plane and therefore we see it from the size?
How could it be that we see the inner portion of the accretion disc, we monitor the temp by location, however, we can't get further information about it as orbital direction and thickness.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09I already told you that I doubt we have any photographs at high enough resolution to see that.
Do we see such observations?
Don't you confirm that the accretion ring is very thin, compressed and always orbits at the same direction?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09Why no?
So, don't you agree that this issue by itself is solid evidence that NOTHING could fall in?
No.
Do you reconfirm that the accretion ring of falling star should keep the orbital plane of the star?
Do you agree that we have never ever found two orbital planes of accretion rings?
Therefore, that by itself is solid evidence that stars never ever fall in.
By the way, how do you explain the observation of stars and black holes orbiting each other where the black hole is sucking streams of gas from the star into an accretion disk if you claim that the accretion disk actually comes out of the black hole itself?You have good questions.
So, let me ask the following:
What do we really see?
Do we really see black hole that is sucking streams of gas from its twin star?
Do we see that stream of gas is going out from the star and moving falling into the BH accretion ring or do we just see an image without the ability to understand the direction of the gas flow?
You have already stated that:
I already told you that I doubt we have any photographs at high enough resolution to see that.So how do we know for sure in which direction the gas really flows?
Can you please offer even one real observation that could justify by 100% the assumption that black hole is sucking streams of gas from the star?
I claim that there is no hot plasma accretion disc in our universe.
Any hot plasma accretion disc (around BH/SMBH) is actually excretion disc.
Therefore, if we see gas between BH' accretion disc to a nearby star, the gas flow is actually on the other direction - from the accretion disc to the star.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2020 21:17:07
The accretion ring is made out of new created matter/plasma.Begging the question is a logical fallacy.
Were you hoping we wouldn't notice it?
Do you agree that we have never ever found two orbital planes of accretion rings?I am not sure we have even found one.
Therefore, that by itself is solid evidence that stars never ever fall in.
So not having found two isn't evidence of anything.
Any hot plasma accretion disc (around BH/SMBH) is actually excretion disc.No it isn't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2020 21:17:36
Did it occur to you that the disk might be the cause of the magnetic field?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/09/2020 22:08:56
In this case, don't you agree that the jet stream must be fully aligned with the magnetic poles?
Presumably.
So, we have clear indications for the magnetic poles directions.
https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg
Is that a photograph or artwork? The accretion disk is not at a 90 degree angle to the jets in that image anyway.
Therefore, I have stated that the jet stream is ultimate evidence.
And I asked you how, yet you didn't answer my question.
You can't compare between rings of Saturn to the accretion ring.
Those rings of Saturn had been created by broken moon/moons.
The accretion ring is made out of new created matter/plasma.
So what? You said that the position of the accretion disk at a 90 degree angle to the jets is due to magnetism, and I showed you an example of where that can happen without any magnetism involved.
Why no?
Because you have demonstrated no such thing. It's a non-sequitur.
Do you reconfirm that the accretion ring of falling star should keep the orbital plane of the star?
Not necessarily.
Do you agree that we have never ever found two orbital planes of accretion rings?
I don't think we've ever found that there was only one, either.
Therefore, that by itself is solid evidence that stars never ever fall in.
That's like arguing that asteroids can't fall into Saturn's atmosphere because Saturn's rings are only in one plane.
Therefore, if we see gas between BH' accretion disc to a nearby star, the gas flow is actually on the other direction - from the accretion disc to the star.
So what are you saying then? That the star itself was formed from the accretion disk of the black hole? By the way, what do you propose is the relationship between a black hole's mass and the size/brightness of its accretion disk/jets? Do larger black holes emit more radiation and have larger disks, or the other way around?
Going back to what I was saying earlier about the magnetic field of the black hole keeping particles from forming an accretion disk: it seems that you were invoking the magnetic field of the accretion disk itself as a way to help get those particles away from the black hole's magnetic field. But what about before the accretion disk has even formed? Immediately after the black hole forms, it will not have produced an accretion disk yet. If there is no accretion disk magnetic field to help those particles get past the black hole's magnetic field, then the particles can't get out and must be forced into jets instead of forming an accretion disk.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2020 22:55:08
https://scitechdaily.com/gamma-ray-beams-suggest-milky-ways-central-black-hole-had-active-past/
"This artist’s conception shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. Previously known gamma-ray bubbles are shown in purple. The bubbles and jets suggest that our galactic center was much more active in the past than it is today. Credit: David A. Aguilar CfA ()"
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/09/2020 06:34:23
it seems that you were invoking the magnetic field of the accretion disk itself as a way to help get those particles away from the black hole's magnetic field.
Did it occur to you that the disk might be the cause of the magnetic field?
Let me focus on this issue.
The idea that the accretion disc could generate magnetic field is totally wrong!!!
As the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, it can't generate that field for itself.
Let me compare the accretion disc to the following two examples -
1. The rotor in electric motor - The rotor rotates due to magnetic field that comes from outside. So, if we could hold it in the space without any impact from magnetic field that comes from outside, it clearly won't rotate. So the rotor can't rotate and generate the requested magnetic field that is requested for its rotation.
2. Solar wind - We clearly see the solar wind above the poles of our Earth. So, if we will use your assumption, we could claim that the solar wind create the magnetic field that is needed to push it to the earth poles..
Sorry - if the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, than it can't be the cause for that field!!!
On the other hand, we also clearly see the Molecular jet stream.
Based on our scientists - 10,000 solar mass had been boosted at 0.8c to a distance of 27,000 Ly above and below the magnetic poles of the SMBH
We already confirmed that this molecular jet stream is due to magnetic field.
So, is it due to the accretion disc magnetic field or due to the SMBH' magnetic field?.
How anyone could even think that an accretion disc with its only 3 Sun mass can do such incredible activity?
How the accretion disc could push away its own mass (it has only 3 Sun mass and it is needed to push 10,000 solar mass) at that ultra velocity (0.8c - while in the outwards disc/ring it only orbits at 0.3c) and to that distance (27,000 Ly while its size is less than one hour Ly) and all of that - by its own magnetic field that had been created by its own mass?
Don't you see that this is a pure fiction? So do you agree by now that ONLY the SMBH' magnetic force with its 4 Million solar mass could do it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2020 08:42:31
As the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, it can't generate that field for itself.That is exactly the situation with the Earth's magnetic field.
Are you saying the Earth can not have one?
Let me compare the accretion disc to the following two examples -Why not compare it to something appropriate?
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/self-exciting-dynamo
Don't you see that this is a pure fiction?What I see is that you do not understand enough science to comment on it.
If you did then you wouldn't say things like "Sorry - if the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, than it can't be the cause for that field!!!"
Incidentally, 1+29 still isn't 42
Post by: Kryptid on 04/09/2020 17:19:54
The idea that the accretion disc could generate magnetic field is totally wrong!!!
Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.
Congratulations on contradicting yourself.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/09/2020 18:15:40
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.The idea that the accretion disc could generate magnetic field is totally wrong!!!Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.Congratulations on contradicting yourself.
In the accretion disc at a very local area (at the size of Pico Millimeter or Centimeter), the particles are bonded by magnetic field. The source for that magnetic could come directly from the SMBH' itself or could be created locally as a side effect from the ultra orbital velocity of the hot plasma under the impact of the SMBH' magnetic field.
However, that local magnetic field has no impact on the activity outside the accretion disc.
So, once a particle is ejected from the accretion disc, it would be trapped by the Mighty SMBH' magnetic field and should fully obey to this force.
That is exactly the situation with the Earth's magnetic field.The earth magnetic field doesn't blow its own mass away.
It affects the solar wind that comes from the Sun.
Why not compare it to something appropriate?How can you compare it to self-exciting dynamo?
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/self-exciting-dynamo
What I see is that you do not understand enough science to comment on it.What I see is that if you believe that a 3 Sun mass accretion disc would tear up 10,000 sun mass from its own mass and blow it at 0.8c to 27,000 Ly above/below the disc than I have nothing to add.
If you did then you wouldn't say things like "Sorry - if the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, than it can't be the cause for that field!!!"
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:03:34Presumably.
In this case, don't you agree that the jet stream must be fully aligned with the magnetic poles?
Is that a photograph or artwork? The accretion disk is not at a 90 degree angle to the jets in that image anyway.That is correct.
ArtSo, it is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees.
https://scitechdaily.com/gamma-ray-beams-suggest-milky-ways-central-black-hole-had-active-past/
"This artist’s conception shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. Previously known gamma-ray bubbles are shown in purple. The bubbles and jets suggest that our galactic center was much more active in the past than it is today. Credit: David A. Aguilar CfA ()"
You said that the position of the accretion disk at a 90 degree angle to the jets is due to magnetism, and I showed you an example of where that can happen without any magnetism involved.I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.
So what are you saying then? That the star itself was formed from the accretion disk of the black hole?No.
A compact BH won't be able to form a Star.
In order to do so it must be big enough as SMBH or at least MBH.
This compact Twin Star/BH had been created by a SMBH.
The gas that we see between the two objects had been created by the BH Itself during its own pair creation process.
Some portion of the gas might fall into the Star, but most of it would spread into the open space.
Do larger black holes emit more radiation and have larger disks?Sure
Over time, a BH would gain enough mass to form its own stars and galaxy.
But what about before the accretion disk has even formed? Immediately after the black hole forms, it will not have produced an accretion disk yet. If there is no accretion disk magnetic field to help those particles get past the black hole's magnetic field, then the particles can't get out and must be forced into jets instead of forming an accretion disk.As usual, you have excellent questions.
So, first - the accretion disc can't produce any sort of real magnetic field (comparing to the BH' magnetic field).
Therefore, we can totally neglect the accretion disc as a source of magnetic field.
If there is no accretion disk (again - please ignore the accretion disc magnetic field) to capture the new created particles that had been ejected from the BH, then those new created particles should be forced into jets instead of forming an accretion disk.
However, at some point, as the BH would be big enough, it would surely be able to set its own accretion disc.
The accretion disc is vital to convert the new created particles to real atoms and Molecular
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2020 18:53:39
The earth magnetic field doesn't blow its own mass away.Nobody said it would.
That's just some bull you made up.
How can you compare it to self-exciting dynamo?because a self exciting dynamo exists and the rotation creates the field that makes it work.
Which means it is a counter example to your misstatement
As the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, it can't generate that field for itself.
It really would be better if you learned some science.
And some arithmetic.
29 +1 is not 42
Post by: Kryptid on 04/09/2020 18:58:40
However, at some point, as the BH would be big enough, it would surely be able to set its own accretion disc.
How? That doesn't solve this problem:
So does the magnetic force. As a matter of fact, the force exerted by a magnetic field falls off faster than the force exerted by a gravitational field. Magnetic fields obey the inverse cube law, whereas gravity obeys the inverse square law. Doubling your distance from a magnetic field source will cause you to feel 23 = 8 times less force than before, whereas doubling your distance from a gravitational field source will cause you to feel 22 = 4 times less force than before.
This means that you still have a problem. Both the magnetic field and the gravitational field will become stronger as you approach the black hole, but the magnetic field strength will increase at a faster rate than the gravitational field strength will. So if the magnetic field isn't strong enough to overwhelm the gravitational field right at the event horizon (where the particles are being formed), then it will be even less capable of overwhelming it at larger distances. This gives you two options:
(1) The particles formed at the event horizon are immediately funneled into polar jets, thus preventing an accretion disk from forming (remember, the magnetic field of your hypothetical magnetized black hole is going to be at its maximum possible strength right at the event horizon), or
(2) The magnetic field is weak enough even at the event horizon to allow particles to move through it without all of them being funneled into jets. If it's weak enough to allow particles out, then it is weak enough to allow particles in.
I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.
That's the claim, but where is the evidence?
However, that local magnetic field has no impact on the activity outside the accretion disc.
That ignores the inverse cube law that magnetism obeys. The magnetic field doesn't magically drop to zero just because you are outside of the accretion disk.
Sure
Over time, a BH would gain enough mass to form its own stars and galaxy.
So your model predicts that a black hole with 100 solar masses emits more radiation than one with 10 solar masses, which in turn emits more radiation than one with 3 solar masses and so on?
So, first - the accretion disc can't produce any sort of real magnetic field (comparing to the BH' magnetic field).
Do you have the math to back that up?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/09/2020 21:32:51
So does the magnetic force. As a matter of fact, the force exerted by a magnetic field falls off faster than the force exerted by a gravitational field. Magnetic fields obey the inverse cube law, whereas gravity obeys the inverse square law. Doubling your distance from a magnetic field source will cause you to feel 23 = 8 times less force than before, whereas doubling your distance from a gravitational field source will cause you to feel 22 = 4 times less force than before.I thought that I have already answered this issue:
This means that you still have a problem. Both the magnetic field and the gravitational field will become stronger as you approach the black hole, but the magnetic field strength will increase at a faster rate than the gravitational field strength will. So if the magnetic field isn't strong enough to overwhelm the gravitational field right at the event horizon (where the particles are being formed), then it will be even less capable of overwhelming it at larger distances. This gives you two options:
(1) The particles formed at the event horizon are immediately funneled into polar jets, thus preventing an accretion disk from forming (remember, the magnetic field of your hypothetical magnetized black hole is going to be at its maximum possible strength right at the event horizon), or
(2) The magnetic field is weak enough even at the event horizon to allow particles to move through it without all of them being funneled into jets. If it's weak enough to allow particles out, then it is weak enough to allow particles in.
Thanks Kryptid for the excellent question.However, as it is still not clear enough, let me explain it as follow:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09677
"The most plausible theories for launching astrophysical jets rely on strong magnetic fields at the inner parts of the host accretion disks. An internal dynamo can in principle generate small scale magnetic fields in situ but generating a large scale field in a disk seems a difficult task in the dynamo theories."
So, they have an idea that: "An internal dynamo can in principle generate small scale magnetic fields.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.
Hence, there are two main sources of magnetic field: the SMBH and the accretion ring..
The meaning of that is as follow:
If we could eliminate the whole accretion disc and leave there only one particle orbiting at the same velocity as the plasma does. In this case, without the local magnetic bonding of the accretion ring, the gravity by itself would be too weak to hold that particle and it would be ejected outwards immediately.
Therefore, the accretion disc holds the particles in the ring by its local magnetic field..
If I understand it correctly, the total mass in the accretion ring is about three Sun mass.
So, the gravity force that works at the accretion ring is not based on a particle vs SMBH but a 3 Sun mass Vs SMBH.
I would compare this scenario to the 3KPC ring in the Milky Way galaxy.
It is quite clear to me that if we would eliminate that 3KPC ring at leave there only one star (orbiting at the same velocity as the ring) this star would be ejected immediately outwards from the galaxy. (as there is no dark matter in our Universe)
So, as long as there is a local bonding between the objects in the ring, that ring can hold and keep all the objects in the orbital cycle.
Hence, in the 3KPC ring the bonding force between all the nearby stars is based on local gravity force, while the bonding force between the nearby particles in the accretion ring is local magnetic field/force.
The outcome is the same.
Actually, I'm quite sure that if we would try to find the requested SMBH mass that could hold a single particle in the accretion disc, we would find that it should be significant higher than the real mass of the SMBH.
I wonder why our scientists don't even try to verify this important issue.
With regards to the SMBH' magnetic field:
In order to understand it, let's use the following example from our sun:
"Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than thought"
https://www.thehansindia.com/hans/young-hans/suns-magnetic-field-is-ten-times-stronger-than-thought-516981
"The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study which can potentially change our understanding of the..."
So, if our scientists have made so severe mistake about the estimation of the Sun's magnetic field while we clearly can see that sun, how do we know that they don't have a sever mistake with the estimation of the SMBH magnetic field?
In any case, as we focus on the solar corona, we see that the matter that had been ejected from the sun is immediately captured by the magnetic field and form the famous corona structure.
In the same token, any particle that drifts away from the accretion ring is captured by the SMBH magnetic field.
Therefore, in order to answer your question:
The particles are drifting outwards in the accretion ring.
As long as they stay there, the SMBH' magnetic field can't pull them away.
However, as they get to the edge of the ring, the local magnetic bonding is quite weak. Therefore, they are easily disconnected from the ring and at that moment the SMBH' magnetic field grabs the ejected particles and boosts them at 0.8c in the direction of the poles.
The orbital velocity at the accretion disc is too high to hold a single particle without the accretion disc.
As I have explained, the particles hold each other by local magnetic force.
Therefore, they can still hold themselves at the ultra high orbital velocity of the accretion disc.
So, if we eliminate the accretion disc, and leave there only a single particle orbiting at the same orbital velocity of the accretion disc, it would be ejected immediately.
Actually, I have already set a calculation for that based on the data which Malamute had offered.
I have found that in order to hold a particle only by the SMBH' gravity force, the requested mass of the SMBH should be significantly higher.
Therefore, as long as the particle is in the accretion disc, it must fully obey to the local forces at that disc.
However, once it is ejected from the accretion disc, the gravity force can't hold it there anymore and therefore, the magnetic force has no competition with the gravity force and it can grab it and boosts it to the magnetic poles.
So, there is no competition between the SMBH' magnetic field to SMBH' gravity force.
With regards to the SMBH' magnetic field:
The SMBH' magnetic field is much more complex than any other example that we can find.
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#/media/File:VFPt_dipole_electric.svg
We see the magnetic pole model: two opposing poles, North (+) and South (−), separated by a distance d produce a H-field (lines).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
It seems to me that somehow the SMBH sets imaginary magnetic poles high above its real matter.
So, if we assume that the imaginary SMBH' North (+) and South (−) are located at a distance of 27,000 Ly away from the SMBH itself, than this could explain why the jet stream is moving at ultra velocity of 0.8c to that imaginary Poles location high above the disc.
This can explain why the magnetic force is still so strong after the location of the accretion disc.
You have offered the evidence.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:15:40That's the claim, but where is the evidence?
I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.
If I recall it correctly, you have stated that we know something about the inner section of the accretion disc.
If the accretion disc was exactly at the same plane as the galactic disc, we surly won't be able to get any information from inside.
So, In order to see something from inside, it must be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees as the jet stream.
That ignores the inverse cube law that magnetism obeys. The magnetic field doesn't magically drop to zero just because you are outside of the accretion disk.The forces at the accretion disc (including the local magnetic field) are direct outcome of the conditions in the accretion disc under the impact of the SMBH' magnetic field.
So, once the particle is outside that disc, it is not effected any more by the forces at the accretion disc including the local magnetic forces that works up to a very limited distances even at the accretion disc
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:15:40Do we really need a math?
So, first - the accretion disc can't produce any sort of real magnetic field (comparing to the BH' magnetic field).
Do you have the math to back that up?
Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?
As the SMBH' mass is 4,000,000 Sun mass while in the accretion disc there is just 3 sun mass, which one should generate higher magnetic field?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/09/2020 22:15:58
I thought that I have already answered this issue:
No. Remember, we are talking about the moment of the black hole's creation where there is no accretion disk.
The orbital velocity at the accretion disc is too high to hold a single particle without the accretion disc.
If that's the case, then an accretion disk can never form because none of the particles can ever be held there.
Therefore, they can still hold themselves at the ultra high orbital velocity of the accretion disc.
So, if we eliminate the accretion disc, and leave there only a single particle orbiting at the same orbital velocity of the accretion disc, it would be ejected immediately.
And that's why there is a problem if the black hole has just formed. There is no accretion disk so there is no mechanism by which you can produce one.
If I recall it correctly, you have stated that we know something about the inner section of the accretion disc.
That's awfully vague.
If the accretion disc was exactly at the same plane as the galactic disc, we surly won't be able to get any information from inside.
So, In order to see something from inside, it must be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees as the jet stream.
I wasn't talking about an accretion disk being at a different angle to the galactic plane. I was talking about its angle relative to the jets.
So, once the particle is outside that disc, it is not effected any more by the forces at the accretion disc including the local magnetic forces that works up to a very limited distances even at the accretion disc
It's as if you completely ignored this:
That ignores the inverse cube law that magnetism obeys. The magnetic field doesn't magically drop to zero just because you are outside of the accretion disk.
Do we really need a math?
Yes. You haven't even shown us a good reason to believe that black holes have a magnetic field, much less how strong it is.
Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass. We have machines on Earth that can generate magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's field, and yet they are obviously many, many times less massive than the Earth.
As the SMBH' mass is 4,000,000 Sun mass while in the accretion disc there is just 3 sun mass, which one should generate higher magnetic field?
The accretion disk, given that the black hole doesn't have a mechanism to generate such a field in the first place.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/09/2020 12:44:39
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:32:51That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass. We have machines on Earth that can generate magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's field, and yet they are obviously many, many times less massive than the Earth.
Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?
Let's try to understand how does the Earth generate magnetic field?
https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/what-creates-earth-s-magnetic-field/
The Earth's core works like a giant bicycle dynamo in reverse.
"Magnetic fields around planets behave in the same way as a bar magnet. But at high temperatures, metals lose their magnetic properties. So it’s clear that Earth’s hot iron core isn’t what creates the magnetic field around our planet.
Instead, Earth’s magnetic field is caused by a dynamo effect.
The effect works in the same way as a dynamo light on a bicycle. Magnets in the dynamo start spinning when the bicycle is pedalled, creating an electric current. The electricity is then used to turn on the light.
This process also works in reverse. If you have a rotating electric current, it will create a magnetic field. "
So, it is stating: "If you have a rotating electric current, it will create a magnetic field.
They also explain:
"On Earth, flowing of liquid metal in the outer core of the planet generates electric currents. The rotation of Earth on its axis causes these electric currents to form a magnetic field which extends around the planet. "
So we understand that the outer core of the planet generates electric currents.
But why do we have current in the plasma of the accretion disc?
The Earth's core works like a giant bicycle dynamo in reverse.
That disc has no core. So, how it could act as a dynamo without a core and how it could generate any sort of current?
If it can't generate current, it is clear that it can't generate magnetic field.
On the other hand we know that there is high current at the accretion disc that transformed the matter there into hot plasma.
So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?
You always raise the flag of energy conservation.
So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?
There is ONLY one solution for that.
The energy that transformed the matter in the accretion disc to hot plasma Must come from outside.
Magnetic field is the only valid way to transform the requested energy into the accretion disc.
That magnetic field must come from outside.
So, in order for the accretion disc to get to that high temp and high current don't you agree that this magnetic field must come from outside?
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet#/media/File:Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet
"The environment around the AGN where the relativistic plasma is collimated into jets which escape along the pole(s) of the suppermassive black hole.
They specifically claim for "the pole(s) of the suppermassive black hole."
So, those poles of the SMBH are the indication of the magnetic poles.
We also see that the accretion disc is clearly orthogonal to those SMBH' poles as I have already expected.
Where are the magnetic poles of the accretion disc?
I still can't understand how you even think that the accretion disc could generate any real amplitude of magnetic field?
It is only a disc. Do you really think that the orbital momentum of that disc by itself would create high magnetic field while it has no core or dynamo?
So, why are you so sure that the accretion disc (with its 3 sun mass) could generate the requested energy that can heat its matter to hot plasma at almost 10^9 K sets high current there and also create Ultra high magnetic field that could boosts 10,000 Sun mass from its disc to that molecular jet stream at 0.8c up to 27,000 LY?
You ask for mathematic calculation. So where is the calculation of the accretion magnetic field?
What is the source of energy at the accretion disc for all of that activity?
Why don't you care about energy conservation when it comes to the accretion disc
On the other hand, as we already know that the core of the earth is a key element in the dynamo, why can't we assume that if the core would be bigger, then it should generate higher magnetic field?
So, if we take a super earth, (with 10 times the earth mass) and therefore, its core would be bigger than the earth core, why it couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Earth??
Don't you agree that the core of the Sun should be bigger than the core of the earth? So, why the Sun couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Earth?
In the same token - Why a BH with 10 Sun mass couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Sun?
Or, why SMBH couldn't generate higher magnetic field than a BH?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2020 12:54:02
Would the Earth's entire magnetic field suddenly vanish?
It would be hard to see why- especially since right at the centre, ther stuff isn't moving and by symmetry, there's no current flow there.
But you would have turned the Earth into a disk with a hole in the middle (OK, a very fat "disk").
And it would still have a magnetic field, maintained by a self exciting dynamo.
And, since it works for a rather thick disk, there's no reason why it wouldn't work for a thin one.
So most of your post is built on sand.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2020 13:03:20
So, why the Sun couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Earth?The field strength at the Sun's surface is about twice that at the Earths surface and(obviously) the Sun is much bigger so the total energy stored in the Sun's field is much bigger.
Nobody had suggested otherwise.
Why a BH with 10 Sun mass couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Sun?Because it hasn't got a core; it's a point.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/09/2020 17:31:21
But why do we have current in the plasma of the accretion disc?
Because it's a moving, electrically-conducting fluid.
So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?
You always raise the flag of energy conservation.
So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?
Gravitational potential energy is converted into heat.
There is ONLY one solution for that.
The energy that transformed the matter in the accretion disc to hot plasma Must come from outside.
Magnetic field is the only valid way to transform the requested energy into the accretion disc.
Nope.
I still can't understand how you even think that the accretion disc could generate any real amplitude of magnetic field?
Because it's a moving, electrically-conducting fluid. That generates a magnetic field. If it didn't, then the Tokamak fusion reactor wouldn't be able to use magnetic fields to hold the plasma inside. That plasma has the same ring shape as an accretion disk.
So, why are you so sure that the accretion disc (with its 3 sun mass)
Magnetism is not caused by mass.
could generate the requested energy that can heat its matter to hot plasma at almost 10^9 K sets high current there and also create Ultra high magnetic field that could boosts 10,000 Sun mass from its disc to that molecular jet stream at 0.8c up to 27,000 LY?
Physicists have done simulations of it, but you don't accept simulations as valid evidence for some reason.
Why don't you care about energy conservation when it comes to the accretion disc
That's a lie.
On the other hand, as we already know that the core of the earth is a key element in the dynamo, why can't we assume that if the core would be bigger, then it should generate higher magnetic field?
Because that depends upon the Earth's rotation rate as well.
In the same token - Why a BH with 10 Sun mass couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Sun?
Or, why SMBH couldn't generate higher magnetic field than a BH?
Because (1) naturally-occurring black holes have no known mechanism by which they can generate any significant magnetic field, and (2) you have yet to provide such a plausible mechanism.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/09/2020 12:06:01
Well, I disagree with that statement due to the following:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:44:39
So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?
You always raise the flag of energy conservation.
So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?
Gravitational potential energy is converted into heat.
1. We are monitoring the milky way accretion disc for the last 10 years or even more than that.
If I recall it correctly, so far we haven't find any falling in object into the milky way accretion disc.
Therefore, we can claim that at least for the last 10 years we didn't observe any matter that falls in.
However, during this quite long time, the accretion disc keeps its radius, keeps its very hot plasma and even generate ultra high magnetic force.
So, what it the source of energy for that activity?
How could it be that in the last 10 years the plasma is still so hot, It even generate ultra high magnetic field that can boosts the particles upwards at 0.8c and all of that without any observed falling in star or gas cloud?
How could it be that we get all of that energy out of nothing as nothing falls in?
2. Magnetohydrodynamics
Because it's a moving, electrically-conducting fluid. That generates a magnetic field. If it didn't, then the Tokamak fusion reactor wouldn't be able to use magnetic fields to hold the plasma inside. That plasma has the same ring shape as an accretion disk.In the following articale we can get some more information about the magnetic properties and behavior of electrically conducting fluids:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD; also magneto-fluid dynamics or hydromagnetics) is the study of the magnetic properties and behavior of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such magnetofluids include plasmas, liquid metals, salt water, and electrolytes.
It is also stated:
The main quantities which characterize the electrically conducting fluid are the bulk plasma velocity field v, the current density J, the mass density ρ, and the plasma pressure p.
So, the electrically conducting fluid is the bulk plasma velocity field v, the current density J, the mass density ρ, and the plasma pressure p.
Don't you agree that all of those characterizations are based on the local forces at the plasma?
So which one is affected by any sort of falling matter.
Velocity - I hope that you agree that it is due to the radius, so it is not due to falling star.
The current density J, the mass density ρ, and the plasma pressure p - are they due to falling star?
So, if none of that characterization is due to falling matter/star - then we can claim that the electrically conducting fluid is not affected by any sort of falling star/matter.
As "The flowing electric charge in the plasma is the source of a magnetic field B and electric field E."
Then we can also claim that the magnetic field B and electric field E isn't due to falling star.
3. Magnetohydrodynamics. poles
In that article they don't say even one word about the Magnetohydrodynamics poles. So how do we know for sure that the magnetic poles of the accretion disc are located directly at the direction of the jet stream. Actually, you have stated that there is no relationship between the two. So, which kind of magnetic force had set the molecular jet stream?
I still wonder how we know that this Magnetohydrodynamics could set enough force to set that jet stream
4. Accretion disc shape
Please remember that the chance that any falling star/gas would be fully directed with the accretion disc plane is less than one to one million or billiom.
However, we have never ever found in the whole Universe any sort of accretion disc which isn't a disc.
Therefore, the chance that the accretion disc is due to falling matter is also less than zero.
5. Potential energy Vs orbital energy vectors
I have already explained that in a falling matter, potential energy can't be converted to orbital kinetic energy.
The direction of potential energy is always directly into the center of the main mass. Therefore, it works vertically.
So, if we drop an object above high above the SMBH, that object could convert its potential energy into falling kinetic energy. Again - vertical falling in velocity.
However, the orbital velocity is horizontal to the center. Therefore, the vertical potential energy can't be converted into any sort of horizontal orbital velocity.
I'm quite sure that that you would claim for different potential energies vs orbital energies in elliptical orbit.
That is totally different scenario as it doesn't represent a falling star/matter but a star in elliptical orbital cycle.
So, I agree that in elliptical orbit there is transformation of energy during the orbital cycle, but that is correct as long as it keeps coming to the same spot (or even almost the same spot) every full cycle. That is the based for Kepler law.
However, if you break down the elliptical orbital cycle and wish that it will reduce its radius, and even set a pure circular orbit while gaining faster orbital velocity at lower radius - that is a pure imagination.
Even if we go back to that moon that is called Phobos, I still wonder if it really could move faster as it drifts in (although it is located at "short range".
Why our scientists didn't monitor its orbital velocity while they monitor its full cycle time?
In any case, all those stars as S stars and G gas cloud are located at "long range" and therefore, none of them would be able to drift inwards and located its whole mass at the accretion disc at supper high velocity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2020 12:22:01
If I recall it correctly, so far we haven't find any falling in object into the milky way accretion disc.I haven't seen Australia, but I still believe it exists.
You are saying that we haven't seen dust 25,000 light years away.
If we ignore your impossible ideas then the only way that anything could be part of the accretion disk is that it's falling in.
And, if we see that disk at all, then what we are seeing is objects that have fallen in.
So to the extent that it's possible to see them; we can.
Velocity - I hope that you agree that it is due to the radius, so it is not due to falling star.We recognise that you hope that we will abandon science for your fairy tale, but you should realise that it's not going to happen.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2020 12:32:18
I have already explained that in a falling matter, potential energy can't be converted to orbital kinetic energy.I have already explained why this is wrong.
The direction of potential energy is always directly into the center of the main mass. Therefore, it works vertically.
So, if we drop an object above high above the SMBH, that object could convert its potential energy into falling kinetic energy.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/09/2020 15:09:16
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/09/2020 17:57:49
If you insist to believe in the current impossible idea, then the only way that anything could be part of the accretion disk is that it's falling in.If I recall it correctly, so far we haven't find any falling in object into the milky way accretion disc.If we ignore your impossible ideas then the only way that anything could be part of the accretion disk is that it's falling in.
And, if we see that disk at all, then what we are seeing is objects that have fallen in.
So to the extent that it's possible to see them; we can.
However, in this case, any falling star should set its unique accretion disc.
How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?
How could it be that so many stars and gas could fall in and all of them will fall directly on the same accretion disc at the galactic center - while we know that almost none of the S stars and G gas orbit directly at the galactic center.
I haven't seen Australia, but I still believe it exists.You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?
How long time is needed for you and the whole science community in order to understand that nothing really falls in?
We are waiting now for at least 10 Year.
So, if in the next 100 Year, nothing would fall in, do you still believe it exists?
I have offered five points against the falling in matter.
The lengths you go to in order to deny non-controversial science is amazing.Do you really consider the unrealistic idea that the accretion disc is based on falling stars as science?
So, let's verify those points:
1. Observation -
As in the last 10/20 years we only see constant outflow stream from the accretion disc, and as we didn't find even one atom that falls in, how long do you insist to wait for the falling matter
Shall we wait 20 more years, 100 Year or just wait for the next one million years?
When would you say - I'm not going to wait any more?
If nothing falls in into the accretion disc, then the matter there must come from inside.
2. Magnetohydrodynamics
Do you really believe that the electrically conducting fluids (hot plasma) could set so strong magnetic field that is needed to boost 10000 Sun mass jet stream at a velocity of 0.8c to 27,000Ly?
3. Magnetohydrodynamics Poles
How do you explain that this Jet stream is moving directly above/below the SMBH poles, while the Magnetohydrodynamics has no poles (at least they do not specify it in the articale)?
If it has poles, how could it be that it is fully synchronize with the SMBH poles?
4. Accretion disc shape
How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?
Why all the falling stars/gas fall only at the accretion disc plan?
5. Potential energy Vs orbital energy vectors
I have already explained that in a falling matter, potential energy can't be converted to orbital kinetic energy.
I have already explained why this is wrong.Well, Halc actually explained that this is feasible if a falling object collides with other object at a lower orbital radius.
So, if there is no object at lower radius, how do you set it there?
Please remember, if you set a collision, than the collided object might be ejected from the orbital cycle.
So, a collision could change object with other object, but how do you add many more objects?
If the falling object is a star in the Sun size, while in the accretion disc there is only hot plasma, how that plasma could stop that star to fall directly into the SMBH?
Let me add the most important issue -
6. Conservation of energy:
Let's assume that the electrically conducting fluids at the accretion disc generates the requested magnetic force.
However, due Conservation of energy that magnetic force/field should come from some sort of energy source.
As we do not see for the last 10/20 years any falling stars, so it is clear that at least for the time frame there is no way to convert potential energy into heat.
However, in all of this time the plasma is still very hot.
So as we don't see any falling star, what kind of energy source could still keep the plasma so hot?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2020 18:53:53
If you insist to believe in the current impossible ideaThere is no reason to suppose that it is impossible; indeed, the evidence we have supports it.
However, in this case, any falling star should set its unique accretion disc.I can't see anything that would stop them merging.
It would be interesting to model it.
How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?Nobody has ruled out "1" as the answer here.
How could it be that so many stars and gas could fall in and all of them will fall directly on the same accretion disc at the galactic centerIt could be that the process for forming the disk would "average out" their individual contributions.
Simple viscosity would be enough to do this.
You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?No.
But that's got nothing to do with the point.
There is evidence for Australia- which is the point.
and as we didn't find even one atom that falls in,The disk IS the matter that is falling in.
Do you really believe that the electrically conducting fluids (hot plasma) could set so strong magnetic field that is needed to boost 10000 Sun mass jet stream at a velocity of 0.8c to 27,000Ly?Yes- mainly because it's big.
But I look forward to your mathematical analysis.
How do you explain that this Jet stream is moving directly above/below the SMBH poles,How do you even know what axis the hole is rotating round?
It has no hair.
How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?As far as I know, with current technology, quite probably zero.
Why all the falling stars/gas fall only at the accretion disc plan?You have the causation the wrong way round.
The gas falls in.
Because it carries angular momentum with it, the gas rotates round the BH.
That's what forms the disk.
It forms in the "right place" because it's caused by the gas that's falling in.
When I turn the tap on, I don't need to align the stream of water with the end of the pipe.
orbital energy vectorsEnergy is a scalar.
However, due Conservation of energy that magnetic force/field should come from some sort of energy source.Yes, gravitational potential energy of stuff falling into a BH.
Whereas you offer no credible source.
As we do not see for the last 10/20 years any falling stars,The universe is a lot older than that.
What would you expect to see in 20 years?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2020 19:25:30
due Conservation of energy
If you actually cared about conservation of energy, you wouldn't propose that black holes can create net energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2020 20:31:28
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:57:49No.
You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?
But that's got nothing to do with the point.
There is evidence for Australia- which is the point.
What kind of evidence do we have for Australia?
Don't you agree that we clearly see/observe that continental (even from space?)
So, what kind of evidence do we OBSERVE as falling in matter?
I would compare the current science approach to the science approach in 1490.
At that time our scientists were sure that India is located just after the horizon.
Therefore, as Columbus arrived to America he was sure that this is India.
Hence, he called the native - Indians.
In the same token, our scientists today are sure that matter MUST fall into the accretion disc.
So, they really don't care that so far they couldn't find any matter that falls into the Milky Way' SMBH.
Actually, they ONLY see that the hot plasma in a disc around the SMBH is ejected outwards almost on a daily basis.
However, they don't let this neglected observation/evidence to confuse them.
They are sure by 100% that sooner or later the SMBH would eat a star for his breakfast or dinner.
Therefore, they have called that disc - accretion disc instead of excretion disc.
They have unlimited hope and unlimited time. Hence, they will continue to monitor that disc from any direction for the next 100 years or even one million years without losing their hope that one day something Must fall in.
Good Luck for them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2020 20:48:28
In the same token, our scientists today are sure that matter MUST fall into the accretion disc.Yes, because we have evidence.
Things fall.
It's not complicated.
So, they really don't care that so far they couldn't find any matter that falls into the Milky Way' SMBH.The only thing we can see from there is the stuff falling in.
(Even if you are making the weird assertion that things fall up rather than down).
You should get a mirror.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2020 20:59:36
In the same token, our scientists today are sure that matter MUST fall into the accretion disc.
It has to come from outside because black holes don't release hydrogen clouds. You don't have any plausible mechanism by which the particles emitted by the black hole can form an accretion disk.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2020 06:15:35
Is it?In the same token, our scientists today are sure that matter MUST fall into the accretion disc.Yes, because we have evidence.
If so, why don't you offer the evidence?
In all the articles that I have found it is stated that we only see Outflow from the accretion disc.
If I understand it correctly, our scientists explain that this outflow is "for sure" due to inflow although they have NEVER EVER observe any sort of falling matter into the Milky way accretion disc.
I couldn't find even one article that states that we see falling matter.
Things fall.This is their biggest mistake.
It's not complicated.
They are absolutely sure that things MUST fall in.
Therefore, the real observation is none relevant.
As I have explained - they do not confuse themselves with real observation.
They wish to believe that things fall in and that is their biggest mistake.
Therefore, they don't deal with real observation - they deal with a concept that "things must fall".
The only thing we can see from there is the stuff falling in.Is it?
Would you kindly introduce the observation of the falling matter into the accretion disc?
Or ,do you mean that they clearly observe outflow, but due to the concept that "things must fall" they assume that this outflow must be an indication for inflow?
So, do you agree that they have never observed any inflow into the accretion disc of the Milky way?
In any case, please don't forget to tell them, that Dave claims that they will never find even one falling atom!!!
black holes don't release hydrogen clouds.That is correct.
BH and SMBH release particles and ONLY particles.
In order to transform those particles to real hydrogen, Helium, Gold, water... Ultra high magnetic field is needed to work under the ultimate accelerator.
That accelerator is called - the accretion disc.
Without all the unique features of that accelerator - not even a single Hydrogen Atom would be created.
Therefore, the Big bang story is a pure fiction.
You can get any sort of energy out of nothing at the Big bang moment.
It won't help us to generate even one real atom without magnetic field and accelerator.
You don't have any plausible mechanism by which the particles emitted by the black hole can form an accretion disk.I have clearly informed how the accretion disc works in order to form Hydrogen and all the molecular variety.
I also have already explained that Atom is a cell of energy.
You can break it and get its energy (in atomic bomb), but we need special conditions to form it.
So, even if we have unlimited energy - we won't be able to form even a single Hydrogen atom without having those special conditions that only exist in the nature in the accretion discs.
As there were no accretion discs after the Big bang, this Big bang story won't be able to form even a single hydrogen Atom.
Why don't you ask the scientists at the CERN if it is possible to create an atom or even any sort of particle by a pure energy of a bomb without using accelerator and especially - without using magnetic field.
So, without magnetic field and without accelerator, the story of creating atoms at some stage in the BBT is a pure fiction.
Sorry - you don't have any plausible mechanism by which Atom Or particle could be created after the Big Bang without magnetic field and real accelerator.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2020 06:20:27
That accelerator is called - the accretion disc.
You are invoking the accretion disk as the cause of the accretion disk forming. That's circular reasoning. What happens when there is no accretion disk yet?
As there were no accretion discs after the Big bang, this Big bang story won't be able to form even a single hydrogen Atom.
There is no accretion disk after a black hole first forms either. So using your same reasoning, a black hole can't form a single hydrogen atom either.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2020 06:53:44
What happens when there is no accretion disk yet?
There is no accretion disk after a black hole first forms either. So using your same reasoning, a black hole can't form a single hydrogen atom either.
Thanks for this question
I actually ask myself the same question, and I think about it for quite long time.
There is high similarity between the accretion rings to the 3KPC rings.
I don't have a real answer how those rings had been formed at the first time.
I have some ideas but I'm not sure about it.
In any case, it seems to me that not all the BH/SMBH has accretion rings or 3KPC rings.
Those that don't have accretion disc won't create atoms and molecular.
Those without 3KPC ring won't carry spiral galaxy.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2020 06:55:50
Those that don't have accretion disc won't create atoms and molecular.
So then how do any black holes have accretion disks?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2020 07:10:06
Are you sure that any BH has accretion disc/ring?Those that don't have accretion disc won't create atoms and molecular.
So then how do any black holes have accretion disks?
If I understand it correctly, we see the BHs by their accretion discs
However, what is the chance that there are many more in the galaxy or even next to us that we can't see as they don't have yet accretion disc?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2020 07:13:01
Are you sure that any BH has accretion disc/ring?
If I understand it correctly, we see the BHs by their accretion discs
However, what is the chance that there are many more in the galaxy or even next to us that we can't see as they don't have yet accretion disc?
You misunderstood my question. Since all black holes start out without accretion disks, then how can any of them develop an accretion disk at all?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2020 08:03:41
You misunderstood my question. Since all black holes start out without accretion disks, then how can any of them develop an accretion disk at all?Yes, I clearly understood your question.
I fully agree that all black holes start out without accretion disks
However, I don't know for sure how the accretion disk had been developed at the first stage.
I only have some ideas.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2020 08:29:03
This is their biggest mistake.Show us the real evidence of things falling up.
They are absolutely sure that things MUST fall in.
Therefore, the real observation is none relevant.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2020 14:36:31
However, I don't know for sure how the accretion disk had been developed at the first stage.
Here are how things stand right now:
You have repeatedly insisted that accretion disks can never form by gas or dust falling into orbit around a black hole from an outside source. So that means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the outside. You have also repeatedly insisted that the magnetic field of a black hole is too strong to allow any particles through it and instead it will inevitably force those particles into jets if they try to cross it. That means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the inside either. If an accretion disk can't come from the outside or from the inside, then an accretion disk can't form at all. So your model predicts that black holes cannot have accretion disks.
Yet we know that they have them.
So you now have three options:
(1) Admit that gas can indeed fall into orbit around black holes from the outside (which would be in line with what Bored Chemist and I have been arguing this whole time).
(2) Admit that some particles can indeed cross the black hole's supposed intrinsic magnetic field without being forced into the jets (which would again be in line with what Bored Chemist and I have been arguing).
(3) Admit that your model is wrong (which Bored Chemist and I already knew).
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2020 15:26:56
As it is, he's just ignoring it (along with lots of other things, like the fact that the first few lines of his opening post are clearly wrong).I would like to add the following:No, it wouldn't.
If one day the Moon would be disconnected from the earth gravity, it won't orbit around the Sun, but it would surly escape to the open space.
Escape velocity from the Sun (starting from near the Earth's orbit) is 42 km/sec
The Earth's orbital velocity is 29 km/s
And the Moon's is about 1 km/s
You can't add 29 and 1 to give an answer bigger than 42.
Try doing science; it can be very rewarding.
He knows it's wrong, but he can't face up to admitting it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2020 21:16:37
You have repeatedly insisted that accretion disks can never form by gas or dust falling into orbit around a black hole from an outside source. So that means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the outside. You have also repeatedly insisted that the magnetic field of a black hole is too strong to allow any particles through it and instead it will inevitably force those particles into jets if they try to cross it.So far so good.
That means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the inside either.Why do you claim such unrealistic statement.
Based on my model the accretion disc MUST come Only from inside.
So, the idea that I don't know how it had been formed at the first phase, doesn't mean that my model doesn't allow the disks to come from inside as it surly comes from inside.
Actually, any first stage is always some miracle.
We can ask how a baby is created at the first stage?
How the 3KPC ring had been created at the first stage?... and so on.
In any case, if you feel that without a clear explanation for the first stage, there is no first stage, than I would try to offer a solution.
Show us the real evidence of things falling up.
Clear observation for "jets from Sagittarius A*"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/
Now researchers have combined x-ray photographs of the galaxy’s center from NASA’s Chandra space telescope with radio data from the Very Large Array (VLA) observatory in New Mexico to offer the best support yet for the idea of jets from Sagittarius A*
Our scientists claim that at least for the last 6 million years the suppermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, has been on a bit of a diet.
https://www.iflscience.com/space/when-the-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole-last-had-a-meal/
It looks like Sagittarius A*, the suppermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, has been on a bit of a diet lately. Astronomers have estimated that its last meal was 6 million years ago.
It is also stated:
https://www.space.com/31524-black-holes-rejected-snack-becomes-science-goldmine.html
Remember that mysterious cloud of gas that was supposed to be on a collision course with the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy? Well, astronomers are still trying to work out why it wasn’t sucked in, and why it didn’t spark the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays.
So, they clearly see outflow, but no inflow (at least for the last 6 Million years).
Why don't you agree to accept what we really see???
If we see an elephant, why is it so difficult for you to accept the idea that we see an elephant?
If we don't see a big foot man, why is it so difficult for you to accept the idea that there is no big foot man?
We see outflow but no inflow.
So the answer is that there is no inflow.
Still refuse to accept that observation???
If so, what do you need in order to accept that clear observation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2020 21:35:41
Clear observation for "jets from Sagittarius A*"They aren't falling, are they.
Is it a language thing?
Do you understand what the word means?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2020 21:36:43
Why don't you agree to accept what we really see???Crumbs from a 6 million year old meal , hanging round the mouth of a black hole.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2020 22:41:55
Why do you claim such unrealistic statement.
Based on my model the accretion disc MUST come Only from inside.
Read this:
You have also repeatedly insisted that the magnetic field of a black hole is too strong to allow any particles through it and instead it will inevitably force those particles into jets if they try to cross it. That means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the inside either.
Actually, any first stage is always some miracle.
No, no it isn't. You don't get to say "it's a miracle" just because you can't explain something. Otherwise, anyone can say anything that they want to and use "it's a miracle" as an excuse for the lack of evidence. If I said the Big Bang was a miracle, you wouldn't accept that as an answer and you know it.
We can ask how a baby is created at the first stage?
This is actually quite well understood by cellular biologists. There is no miracle involved.
In any case, if you feel that without a clear explanation for the first stage, there is no first stage, than I would try to offer a solution.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that your model prevents an accretion disk from forming because you have an obstacle in place (the black hole's magnetic field) that prevents one from forming. Remember, you have been absolutely adamant that nothing can get through that magnetic field. You claim that anything that tries to is forced into the polar jets instead. If your model has an obstacle that prevents the formation of an accretion disk, then it has to be wrong because we see accretion disks around black holes in real life.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/09/2020 05:32:21
What I'm saying is that your model prevents an accretion disk from forming because you have an obstacle in place (the black hole's magnetic field) that prevents one from forming. Remember, you have been absolutely adamant that nothing can get through that magnetic field. You claim that anything that tries to is forced into the polar jets instead. If your model has an obstacle that prevents the formation of an accretion disk, then it has to be wrong because we see accretion disks around black holes in real life.
What I'm saying is that our scientists don't have a basic clue how the SMBH works and especially how the black hole's magnetic field works.
In order to get some basic information, let's look at the Sun:
https://www.space.com/11506-space-weather-sunspots-solar-flares-coronal-mass-ejections.html
Solar flares
The high magnetic fields in the sunspot-producing active regions also give rise to explosions known as solar flares. When the twisted field lines cross and reconnect, energy explodes outward with a force exceeding that of millions of hydrogen bombs. [The Sun's Wrath: Worst Solar Storms in History]
Temperatures in the outer layer of the sun, known as the corona, typically fall around a few million kelvin. As solar flares push through the corona, they heat its gas to anywhere from 10 to 20 million K, occasionally reaching as high as 100 million K. According to NASA, the energy released in a solar flare "is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time."
So it is clearly stated that the magnetic field at the Sun is so strong that it sets flares and ultra high heat at the plasma around it to 100 million K.
However, when it comes to the SMBH, our scientists don't claim that the flares over there are due to the SMBH magnetic field.
They wish to believe that it is due to the falling matter.
They look at the plasma' ultra high temp in the accretion disc and they wish to believe that it is due to the falling stars, while we clearly see just in front of our eyes that the heated plasma at the Sun is due to the magnetic filed.
We also see a very interesting phenomenon as Bow shock, termination sock and Heliospheric current sheet which prove that the magnetic field could form unexpected stractures
Bow shock[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#/media/File:Solarmap.gif
Further information: Bow shocks in astrophysics
It was long hypothesized that the Sun produces a "shock wave" in its travels within the interstellar medium. It would occur if the interstellar medium is moving supersonically "toward" the Sun, since its solar wind moves "away" from the Sun supersonically.
This phenomenon has been observed outside the Solar System, around stars other than the Sun, by NASA's now retired orbital GALEX telescope. The red giant star Mira in the constellation Cetus has been shown to have both a debris tail of ejecta from the star and a distinct shock in the direction of its movement through space (at over 130 kilometers per second).
Termination shock[edit]
A "termination shock" analogy of water in a sink basin
The termination shock is the point in the heliosphere where the solar wind slows down to subsonic speed (relative to the Sun) because of interactions with the local interstellar medium. This causes compression, heating, and a change in the magnetic field. In the Solar System, the termination shock is believed to be 75 to 90 astronomical units[30] from the Sun. In 2004, Voyager 1 crossed the Sun's termination shock, followed by Voyager 2 in 2007.[2][6][31][32][33][34][35][36]
The shock arises because solar wind particles are emitted from the Sun at about 400 km/s, while the speed of sound (in the interstellar medium) is about 100 km/s. (The exact speed depends on the density, which fluctuates considerably. For comparison, the Earth orbits the Sun at about 30 km/s
Heliospheric current sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet#/media/File:Heliospheric-current-sheet.gif
The heliospheric current sheet[1] is the surface in the Solar System where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south. This field extends throughout the Sun's equatorial plane in the heliosphere.[2][3] The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (solar wind).[4] A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10−10 A/m2. The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000 km near the orbit of the Earth.
They claim that the solar wind particles are emitted from the Sun at about 400 km/s.
They also specifically discuss about "equatorial plane in the heliosphere" "where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south.
That exactly the same location where the SMBH' accretion disc is located.
So, at different locations around the Sun there could be different phenomenon. I'm not sure that our scientists could deeply explain all of those activities at the Sun, but at least they do understand that all of those phenomenon are due to the Ultra high magnetic field of the Sun.
Therefore, your following message is totally incorrect:
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/09/2020 21:32:51
Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass. We have machines on Earth that can generate magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's field, and yet they are obviously many, many times less massive than the Earth.
As you claim that the Magnetic field of the earth is so weak and we clearly see that the Sun' magnetic field is stronger than the one on Earth, then how can you claim that: "That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass"
Sorry, at the right conditions, Magnetism is directly affected mass.
The Dynamo in the core of the Sun is much more massive and hotter than the one in Earth, therefore, the sun could generate much more magnetic filed.
In the same token, the Dynamo in the core of the SMBH is much more massive and hotter than the one in the Sun, therefore it generates much more magnetic field than the Sun.
This magnetic field sets ultra high force at the "equatorial plane" where the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south. At this location the accretion disc is formed.
The plasma at the accretion disc is directly affected by the mighty ultra high magnetic field of the SMBH.
While the Sun' Magnetic field could increase the temp of its plasma to 100MK, the SMBH' magnetic field can increase its plasma temp to 10^9K.
How can you claim:
Sorry, the plasma at the accretion disc at the SMBH is directly affected by the SMBH' magnetic field and not by any sort of potential energy of a falling star.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 05/09/2020 12:44:39Gravitational potential energy is converted into heat.
So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?
You always raise the flag of energy conservation.
So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?
It is there directly do to the structure of the SMBH' magnetic field at the equatorial "where the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south.
That magnetic field might also generate some sort of "termination shock" or "shock wave" at far location from the accretion disc that could prevent from any atom from outside to come closer.
This is also the Ultimate force that can boosts all the new created molecular which had been formed in the accretion disc at 0.8c to the imaginary locations of the poles 27,000LY above and below the disc.
Therefore, I have claimed that the SMBH's poles are located at imaginary points high above its real mass.
I'm quite sure that once we know how the magnetic field of the SMBH works, we would understand all the phenomenon that we see around it.
So, how can you ignore such clear observations which we see at the sun - in front of our eyes?
How our scientists could ignore the ULTRA high magnetic field/force of the SMBH???
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2020 05:44:48
What I'm saying is that our scientists don't have a basic clue how the SMBH works and especially how the black hole's magnetic field works.
What scientists do (or don't) know is irrelevant to the fact that your own arguments prevent an accretion disk from forming.
As you claim that the Magnetic field of the earth is so weak and we clearly see that the Sun' magnetic field is stronger than the one on Earth, then how can you claim that: "That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass"
Because it isn't. You missed this very important statement of mine:
Quote
We have machines on Earth that can generate magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's field, and yet they are obviously many, many times less massive than the Earth.
Sorry, at the right conditions, Magnetism is directly affected mass.
Magnetic field strength is related to the strength of the electric current used to produce it. Electric current isn't mass.
In the same token, the Dynamo in the core of the SMBH is much more massive and hotter than the one in the Sun, therefore it generates much more magnetic field than the Sun.
How do you know that a SMBH even has a core? If it does, how do you know it has electric currents in it? What is it made of? What keeps it from collapsing under the black hole's gravity?
How our scientists could ignore the ULTRA high magnetic field/force of the SMBH???
You're ignoring it when you claim that a black hole that does not yet have an accretion disk can produce one, so they're in good company. That magnetic field should make all of the particles form into jets because you say it is absolutely impassible. If it's impassible, then particles can't get out to form an accretion disk.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/09/2020 07:18:46
Magnetic field strength is related to the strength of the electric current used to produce it. Electric current isn't mass.Do you agree that the dynamo at the Sun is more massive than the one on earth and therefore, the Electric current there is higher so it can generate Higher magnetic field?
How do you know that a SMBH even has a core? If it does, how do you know it has electric currents in it? What is it made of?The idea that our scientists don't know how the SMBH works, doesn't mean that it has no core.
We need to look around it.
If we see flares next to the SMBH and we know for sure that similar flares around the Sun are due to the Sun' magnetic field, than it is clear that those flares also there due to the SMBH' magnetic field.
As the accretion disc is located at the equatorial "where the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south it proves that it is there due to the SMBH' magnetic field.
You have also agreed that the molecular jet stream is due to Magnetic field. As its velocity (0.8c) and its length is 27,000Ly above/below the SMBH poles it is clear that it is due to the SMBH' magnetic field.
What keeps it from collapsing under the black hole's gravity?Well, it seems to me that you have a mistake.
Quote from: Kryptid on 04/09/2020 18:58:40This is incorrect
That ignores the inverse cube law that magnetism obeys. The magnetic field doesn't magically drop to zero just because you are outside of the accretion disk.
http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gif
B is affected by 1/r, while the gravity force is affected by 1/r^2
Therefore, near the SMBH, the gravity force is stronger while further away the magnetic force is stronger.
Hence, at the accretion disc near the SMBH, the gravity force is much stronger and therefore it can hold the new created particles at a circular orbiting cycle around the SMBH. At that aria near the equatorial plane, the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south. Therefore, the new created particles that have just been created and ejected from the event horizon are deeply affected by the ultra force of the SMBH' magnetic force.
Hence, the plasma there is so hot 10^9K. The conditions there transform those new created particles into real atoms and Molecular.
As the molecular drift outwards from the accretion disc, the magnetic field takes control, grabs them all and boosts them into those molecular jet streams.
Latter on the molecular should fall into the galactic disc and join one of the G Gas clouds.
New stars forming activity would take place at those gas clouds as they come close enough to the SMBH.
Therefore, S2, S1 and all the other S stars are new born stars that have got their mass from the molecular which had been created at the accretion disc.
Hence, all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy including all the nearby dwarf galaxies are direct product of the mass creation activity at the accretion disc.
You're ignoring it when you claim that a black hole that does not yet have an accretion disk can produce one, so they're in good company. That magnetic field should make all of the particles form into jets because you say it is absolutely impassible. If it's impassible, then particles can't get out to form an accretion disk.Well, you had confused me with that message about magnetic filed.
Now that we know how it really works, we do understand how it had been created at the first phase.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2020 12:19:51
Do you agree that the dynamo at the Sun is more massive than the one on earth and therefore, the Electric current there is higher so it can generate Higher magnetic field?Do you understand that's not the only factor?
For example, the bigger the object is the more area of teh magnetic field is swept by a conductor, so the bigger the current are.
But a black hole is a point.
So it has no area
So it has no magnetic field.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2020 12:25:26
This is incorrectYes; what you say is incorrect.
On the other hand, the point about the 1/r^3 dependence of force on distance from a magnetic dipole is correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole#Magnitude
Well, you had confused me with that message about magnetic filed.You're still confused.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/09/2020 15:23:42
On the other hand, the point about the 1/r^3 dependence of force on distance from a magnetic dipole is correct.Is it real?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole#Magnitude
Do you have an understanding which formula we need to use?
Based on Kryptid message:
Magnetic field strength is related to the strength of the electric current used to produce it.So, we need to look for a formula which is based on current.
The following formula is the ultimate solution for that:
http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gif
B is affected by 1/r, while the gravity force is affected by 1/r^2
B = μ * I / ( 2 π r)
Therefore
B is affected by 1/r
In any case, let's look at your formula.
We discuss hear on Dipole which consists of two equal and opposite point charges:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole#Magnitude
"A physical dipole consists of two equal and opposite point charges: in the literal sense, two poles. Its field at large distances (i.e., distances large in comparison to the separation of the poles) depends almost entirely on the dipole moment as defined above"
This doesn't fully represent our case
However, even in this case, the formula is:
B = ( μ/4π) * (3(m r̂ ) r̂ - m)/R^3
where
B is the field
R is the vector from the position of the dipole to the position where the field is being measured
r is the absolute value of R: the distance from the dipole
r̂ = R / r is the unit vector parallel to R
m is the (vector) dipole moment
μ0 is the permeability of free space
if we assume that r̂ ^ 2 is bigger than m we get
B = ( μ/4π) * (3(m r̂ ) r̂ /R^3
If we assume that any r = r̂ = R represents absolute value of R
r = r̂ = R
we actually get
B= ( μ/4π) * 3m/r
So again B is affected by 1/r
In any case, the message from Kryptid is very clear:
Magnetic field strength is related to the strength of the electric current used to produce it.So, we must use:
B = μ * I / ( 2 π r)
Hence
B is affected by 1/r
I think that at this stage the science community should offer me a reward for my discovery!
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2020 17:25:46
This will remain true, no matter how often you pretend otherwise.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2020 17:35:10
Do you agree that the dynamo at the Sun is more massive than the one on earth and therefore, the Electric current there is higher so it can generate Higher magnetic field?
Yes, but the fact that it has more mass isn't what causes the field strength to be higher.
The idea that our scientists don't know how the SMBH works, doesn't mean that it has no core.
We need to look around it.
If we see flares next to the SMBH and we know for sure that similar flares around the Sun are due to the Sun' magnetic field, than it is clear that those flares also there due to the SMBH' magnetic field.
As the accretion disc is located at the equatorial "where the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south it proves that it is there due to the SMBH' magnetic field.
You have also agreed that the molecular jet stream is due to Magnetic field. As its velocity (0.8c) and its length is 27,000Ly above/below the SMBH poles.
And... those didn't answer my questions at all. So let me ask again: How do you know that a SMBH even has a core? If it does, how do you know it has electric currents in it? What is it made of?
Quote
it is clear that it is due to the SMBH' magnetic field
Not clear at all, actually. You have to show that the magnetic field is due to the black hole and not due to the accretion disk. We know for a fact, based on the laws of physics, that the accretion disk must generate a magnetic field. So saying that the black hole makes one too is redundant unless you can provide some actually evidence for there being one there.
Well, it seems to me that you have a mistake.
That, again, did absolutely nothing to answer my question. So tell me, how can the core withstand the black hole's gravity without collapsing?
Hence, at the accretion disc near the SMBH, the gravity force is much stronger and therefore it can hold the new created particles at a circular orbiting cycle around the SMBH.
Those particles form at the event horizon, which you say is at "short range" and thus the particles must have a decaying orbit, not an expanding one.
Hence, the plasma there is so hot 10^9K. The conditions there transform those new created particles into real atoms and Molecular.
Where did the plasma come from? Remember, there is no accretion disk when we start things off. If you have to have a hot accretion disk in order to create atoms and molecules for the accretion disk to exist, then, well, you've created a catch-22.
Now that we know how it really works, we do understand how it had been created at the first phase.
Then tell me how, because you haven't explained it yet.
I think that at this stage the science community should offer me a reward for my discovery!
You haven't discovered a single thing.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/09/2020 18:05:23
How do you know that a SMBH even has a core? If it does, how do you know it has electric currents in it? What is it made of?All of those questions are none relevant as we can't see it from inside and we would never ever see it.
We can just see what is going around it.
So please try to answer the following:
1. Do you agree that the activity of the Sun' magnetic field could give us some indication on the SMBH' magnetic filed activity?
2. Solar flares
Do you agree that the Flares around the Sun are due to the Sun magnetic Field?
https://www.space.com/11506-space-weather-sunspots-solar-flares-coronal-mass-ejections.html
"The high magnetic fields in the sunspot-producing active regions also give rise to explosions known as solar flares. When the twisted field lines cross and reconnect, energy explodes outward with a force exceeding that of millions of hydrogen bombs. [The Sun's Wrath: Worst Solar Storms in History]"
So, Why the flares around the SMBH couldn't be due to the SMBH' magnetic filed?
3. Hot Plasma of 100MK at the Sun' Corona
Do you argree that the Hot plasma at the Corona around the Sun is due to the Sun magnetic field?
https://www.space.com/11506-space-weather-sunspots-solar-flares-coronal-mass-ejections.html
Temperatures in the outer layer of the sun, known as the corona, typically fall around a few million kelvin. As solar flares push through the corona, they heat its gas to anywhere from 10 to 20 million K, occasionally reaching as high as 100 million K. According to NASA, the energy released in a solar flare "is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time."
So, why the hot plasma in the accretion disc (which is estimated at a range of 100MK to 10^9K) around the SMBH couldn't be due to the SMBH' magnetic filed?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2020 18:16:37
All of those questions are none relevant as we can't see it from inside and we would never ever see it.They are relevant because you say it's the core that generates the magnetic field.
We can just see what is going around it.
To say that, you need to show that there's a core.
1. Do you agree that the activity of the Sun' magnetic field could give us some indication on the SMBH' magnetic filed activity?No
Because the Sun isn't a point, but a black hole is.
.
So, why the hot plasma in the accretion disc (which is estimated at a range of 100MK to 10^9K) around the SMBH couldn't be due to the SMBH' magnetic filed?Well, for a start, there's no credible mechanism here for a BH to have a field.
Do you agree that the Flares around the Sun are due to the Sun magnetic Field?So what?
So, why the hot plasma in the accretion disc (which is estimated at a range of 100MK to 10^9K) around the SMBH couldn't be due to the SMBH' magnetic filed?Why not just follow sensible physics and saty it's due to stuff falling in?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/09/2020 22:58:05
All of those questions are none relevant as we can't see it from inside and we would never ever see it.
If you want the black hole to have a magnetic field, it is very much relevant.
The laws of physics actually won't let such a core exist. Nothing can travel away from a black hole's center if it is already inside of the hole, not even if the signal is moving at the speed of light. Matter's ability to support itself against pressure is due to the fact that each particle can "feel" the other particles around it using one of the four fundamental forces. However, those particles can only transmit forces between each other at the speed of light at the very most. So particles in the center of the core therefore cannot transmit a force to those into the outer region of the core because such a signal cannot move away from the black hole's center. If the force cannot be transmitted, then there will be nothing supporting those particles in the outer layer against collapse.
1. Do you agree that the activity of the Sun' magnetic field could give us some indication on the SMBH' magnetic filed activity?
No. Black holes are not made of plasma like the Sun is.
Do you agree that the Flares around the Sun are due to the Sun magnetic Field?
Yes.
Do you argree that the Hot plasma at the Corona around the Sun is due to the Sun magnetic field?
Last time I checked, the reason that the Sun's corona is so much hotter than its surface is still a mystery. That might have changed recently, but if so, I haven't heard about it.
So, why the hot plasma in the accretion disc (which is estimated at a range of 100MK to 10^9K) around the SMBH couldn't be due to the SMBH' magnetic filed?
It's not that it couldn't be due to the black hole's magnetic field so much as there is no need to invoke one in order to explain what we observe. A magnetic field generated by the accretion disk is enough. We know from the laws of physics that an accretion disk must create a magnetic field. By contrast, the laws of physics do not require a black hole to have a magnetic field.
I also noticed you still haven't addressed the fact that there is no way for a black hole to create an accretion disk in your model. Is the magnetic field impassible? If so, then particles can't get out in order to form an accretion disk. If it isn't impassible, then matter can fall into the black hole from inside.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/09/2020 05:58:34
Matter's ability to support itself against pressure is due to the fact that each particle can "feel" the other particles around it using one of the four fundamental forcesBased on Theory D the BH/SMBH is full with Particles (without a single atom).
Those particles can feel each other. Therefore, their "shell" actually touch each other back to back.
However, those particles can only transmit forces between each other at the speed of light at the very most. So particles in the center of the core therefore cannot transmit a force to those into the outer region of the core because such a signal cannot move away from the black hole's center. If the force cannot be transmitted, then there will be nothing supporting those particles in the outer layer against collapse.Any particle and any atom is a pure cell of energy.
That energy represents its mass.
If you break the particle shell, its energy is lost and therefore it should also lose its total mass.
Hence, if particles at the core of the BH would collapse, they would lose their energy and their mass would be ZERO.
Therefore, the assumption that the BH or a SMBH is a point is a severe mistake.
Because the Sun isn't a point, but a black hole is.So, that statement is clearly incorrect.
Black holes are not made of plasma like the Sun is.The BH is made out of Particles while the Sun is made out of atoms (mainly hydrogen)
This is the main difference between the two objects.
So, what could be the difference in their size?
Let's assume that the BH is full with nucleus and verify the difference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius
Under most definitions the radii of isolated neutral atoms range between 30 and 300 pm (trillionths of a meter), or between 0.3 and 3 ångströms. Therefore, the radius of an atom is more than 10,000 times the radius of its nucleus (1–10 fm),[2] and less than 1/1000 of the wavelength of visible light (400–700 nm).
So, the difference between the nucleus to its atom is one to 10,000.
Hence, if we would set the entire nucleus in the BH in a row, their total length should be 1/10,000= 1/10^4 with regards to the same quantity of atoms.
However, as we discuss on a sphere, the ratio should be (1/10^4)^3 = 1/10^7.
Hence, the size of our SMBH with its 4*10^6 sun mass is
4/10 = 0.4 Sun size
So simple and clear.
Do you agree with that?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2020 07:17:32
Based on Theory D the BH/SMBH is full with Particles (without a single atom).
Those particles can feel each other. Therefore, their "shell" actually touch each other back to back.
Then your model violates relativity (yet again). That's the only way that force can propagate outward in a black hole: by moving faster than light.
If you break the particle shell, its energy is lost and therefore it should also lose its total mass.
There is no evidence that particles have shells, so that statement doesn't make any sense.
Any particle and any atom is a pure cell of energy.
An unevidenced statement. Particles are not made of energy. That's no more valid than saying that particles are made of charge or spin. Energy is a property of particles.
Let's assume that the BH is full with nucleus
Let's not, because that isn't possible. Nuclear degeneracy pressure is insufficient to support a nucleus against collapse inside of a black hole. That's why neutron stars can only become so massive (that limit is a bit more than twice the mass of the Sun). If they are any heavier, nuclear degeneracy pressure is overwhelmed and the neutron star is forced to collapse into a black hole.
Do you agree with that?
No. The radius of a black hole is defined as the distance at which its escape velocity reaches the speed of light (obviously, since light can't escape black holes by definition). That is also called the Schwarzschild radius. For a black hole with a mass 4 million times the mass of the Sun, the escape velocity reaches the speed of light at a radius of about 12 million kilometers. That's significantly larger than the Sun's radius (which is only about 695,700 kilometers). So when you say:
Hence, the size of our SMBH with its 4*10^6 sun mass is
4/10 = 0.4 Sun size
It is wrong by a large margin.
So simple and clear.
So simple and wrong, just like your "Model D" (I'm not going to call it "Theory D", because scientific theories don't invoke literal miracles like you did when said your model requires a miracle for a black hole to generate an accretion disk).
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2020 08:54:23
So simple and clear.And so wrong.
You really need to look up what black holes are like.
Since there is nothing which is strong enough to counter their gravity, they collapse down to point sized objects.
Maybe they are as big as the planck length, but they certainly are not bigger.
You really should have listened when I pointed this out here
Because it hasn't got a core; it's a point.Then you wouldn't have wasted further time on it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2020 08:56:10
No. The radius of a black hole is defined as the distance at which its escape velocity reaches the speed of light (obviously, since light can't escape black holes by definition). That is also called the Schwarzschild radius.That's the size of the event horizon of the hole, not of the hole itself, which is a singularity.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/09/2020 19:35:42
There is no evidence that particles have shells, so that statement doesn't make any sense.Any particle has some sort of volume/size. It is a key element in its chemical properties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle
In the physical sciences, a particle (or corpuscule in older texts) is a small localized object or entity to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass.[1][2] They vary greatly in size or quantity, from subatomic particles like the electron, to microscopic particles like atoms and molecules, to macroscopic particles like powders and other granular materials.
Today we can even estimate the size of electron:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.3041.pdf
"Experimentally, we know (now) that the “size” of the electron is small, Re <∼ 10^−17 cm"
So, if it has a volume it also must have size or some sort of shell.
You can't squeeze it to zero.
If you try to do so, you would break down the Particle/subatomic particle
With regards to proton:
It is considered as subatomic particle and it has a size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a measurable size; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
A proton is composed of two up quarks, one down quark, and the gluons that mediate the forces "binding" them together.
The mass of the up quark is - 2.2 Mev/c^2
The mass of the down quark is - 4.7 Mev/c^2
Therefore, the total mass in the three quarks is - 2.2 +2.2 + 4.7 = 9.1 Mev/c^2
However, the mass of a proton is - 938 Mev/c^2
So, how could it be that those 3 quarks could set a proton with mass of 938 Mev/c^2?
The extra mass is coming by gluons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#/media/File:Quark_structure_proton.svg
"The quark structure of the proton. There are two up quarks in it and one down quark. The strong force is mediated by gluons (wavey)."
So, the total mass of the gluons is a proton is:
938-9.1 / 938 * 100% = 99%
Hence,
The root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m)
if that proton collapse, we might get there quarks out of it at total mass of 9.1 Mev/c^2, but it must lose the gluons which represents 9% of its total mass.
Therefore, the assumption that particles/protons could be collapsed and still maintain their original mass is a pure fiction.
The ONLY way to keep the proton' mass is by keeping its "charged radius".
Therefore, any object (even if you call it - BH) with real radius of Zero would carry a mass of Zero.
You really need to look up what black holes are like.If BH is at the size of Planck length, then you need to verify how many Particles/quarks you could fit in this size.
Since there is nothing which is strong enough to counter their gravity, they collapse down to point sized objects.
Maybe they are as big as the planck length, but they certainly are not bigger.
This will give you the total mass in that Planck length - which should be close to zero.
No. The radius of a black hole is defined as the distance at which its escape velocity reaches the speed of light (obviously, since light can't escape black holes by definition). That is also called the Schwarzschild radius. For a black hole with a mass 4 million times the mass of the Sun, the escape velocity reaches the speed of light at a radius of about 12 million kilometers. That's significantly larger than the Sun's radius (which is only about 695,700 kilometers). So when you say:So do you claim that the radius of the SMBH is 12 MK?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:58:34It is wrong by a large margin.
Hence, the size of our SMBH with its 4*10^6 sun mass is
4/10 = 0.4 Sun size
How could it be that a radius of Planck length had been shifted to 12MK?
. The radius of a black hole is defined as the distance at which its escape velocity reaches the speed of light (obviously, since light can't escape black holes by definition). That is also called the Schwarzschild radius.
That's the size of the event horizon of the hole,Yes, I agree with that.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2020 19:48:37
Any particle has some sort of volume/size. It is a key element in its chemical properties:
Atoms have a size. The fundamental particles that make them up (quarks and electrons), not necessarily so.
"Experimentally, we know (now) that the “size” of the electron is small, Re <∼ 10^−17 cm"
That represents an upper limit of the electron's size, not its actual size. Electrons could be point particles for all we know.
So, if it has a volume it also must have size or some sort of shell.
Non-sequitur. A shell is not implied by there being a size.
You can't squeeze it to zero.
If electrons are point particles, then they already have a size of zero.
if that proton collapse, we might get there quarks out of it at total mass of 9.1 Mev/c^2, but it must lose the gluons which represents 9% of its total mass.
You can't have free quarks, so this is wrong.
Therefore, the assumption that particles/protons could be collapsed and still maintain their original mass is a pure fiction.
Non-sequitur.
How could it be that a radius of Planck length had been shifted to 12MK?
Nobody said that it was. You are mistaking the singularity for the event horizon.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/09/2020 05:49:22
Even if this value represents its upper limit, don't you agree that there must be also lower limit?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:35:42That represents an upper limit of the electron's size, not its actual size. Electrons could be point particles for all we know.
"Experimentally, we know (now) that the “size” of the electron is small, Re <∼ 10^−17 cm"
If the electron collapse below that lower limit how can we still consider it as electron?
Could it be that your assumption that Electrons could be a zero point particle is incorrect?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:35:42Atoms have a size. The fundamental particles that make them up (quarks and electrons), not necessarily so.
Any particle has some sort of volume/size. It is a key element in its chemical properties:
Our scientists claim that the size of the Atom is bigger by 10,000 times with regards to the size of its nucleus.
So, as you confirm that atom has a size then you also must confirm that its nucleus MUST has a size.
A proton is located in that Nucleus.
I have offered full explanation about Proton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
A proton is composed of two up quarks, one down quark, and the gluons that mediate the forces "binding" them together.
The mass of the up quark is - 2.2 Mev/c^2
The mass of the down quark is - 4.7 Mev/c^2
Therefore, the total mass in the three quarks is - 2.2 +2.2 + 4.7 = 9.1 Mev/c^2
However, the mass of a proton is - 938 Mev/c^2
So, how could it be that those 3 quarks could set a proton with mass of 938 Mev/c^2?
The extra mass is coming by gluons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#/media/File:Quark_structure_proton.svg
"The quark structure of the proton. There are two up quarks in it and one down quark. The strong force is mediated by gluons (wavey)."
So, the total mass of the gluons is a proton is:
938-9.1 / 938 * 100% = 99%
Hence,
The root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m)
if that proton collapse, we might get there quarks out of it at total mass of 9.1 Mev/c^2, but it must lose the gluons which represents 9% of its total mass.
Therefore, the assumption that particles/protons could be collapsed and still maintain their original mass is a pure fiction.
The ONLY way to keep the proton' mass is by keeping its "charged radius".
Therefore, any object (even if you call it - BH) with real radius of Zero would carry a mass of Zero.
It is stated clearly that "The root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m)"?
We also understand from the article that the Gluons is a pure energy which holds the quarks in order to form a proton.
Hence, what could be the outcome if it collapses much below its minimal size?
How the Gluons could still exist if we disconnect it from the three quarks?
Don't you agree that at the moment that we break the structure of the proton, the Gluons is lost forever?
At that moment 99% of the proton mass (938 Mev/c^2) had been lost.
Therefore, the left over from that proton are the three quarks with only 9.1 Mev/c^2.
However, you claim:
You can't have free quarks, so this is wrong.So, there is no way to break the proton.
In any case, if you believe that a proton could carry mass at a size of zero, then why atom couldn't carry mass at size of zero?
Please remember, 10,000 times of zero is still zero.
So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
Please - yes or no?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2020 08:39:36
don't you agree that there must be also lower limit?Yes, zero.
If the electron collapse below that lower limit how can we still consider it as electron?Because.if that's how big it is then that's how big it is.
Could it be that your assumption that Electrons could be a zero point particle is incorrect?All the evidence supports the idea.
It could be wrong, but there's no reason to think it is.
So, as you confirm that atom has a size then you also must confirm that its nucleus MUST has a size.Nobody has disputed this; why raise it?
I have offered full explanation about Proton:No you have not; mainly you quoted WIKI.
So, there is no way to break the proton.And yet we do, at places like CERN.
Again it's the familiar idea that, when reality disagrees with you. it's not reality which is mistaken
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2020 14:31:50
Even if this value represents its upper limit, don't you agree that there must be also lower limit?
Yes, that lower limit is zero.
If the electron collapse below that lower limit how can we still consider it as electron?
You can't collapse below zero.
Could it be that your assumption that Electrons could be a zero point particle is incorrect?
Yes. Superstring theory posits that electrons are actually tiny strings with a length on the order of the Planck length. If that is true, then they could not collapse below that length and we would expect black holes not to collapse below that length either.
So, as you confirm that atom has a size then you also must confirm that its nucleus MUST has a size.
A proton is located in that Nucleus.
Yes, the nucleus and proton do have a size. However, the proton is made up of quarks, which have no known size.
Hence, what could be the outcome if it collapses much below its minimal size?
You get a positively-charged singularity, presumably.
How the Gluons could still exist if we disconnect it from the three quarks?
Who said anything about disconnecting gluons from quarks?
Don't you agree that at the moment that we break the structure of the proton, the Gluons is lost forever?
No. Any mass-energy represented by the gluons would simply become a part of the mass-energy of the resulting singularity. That's due to conservation of energy.
At that moment 99% of the proton mass (938 Mev/c^2) had been lost.
Nope.
So, there is no way to break the proton.
Protons are broken all the time in particle accelerators. It's just that new quarks and anti-quarks are created in the process so that no single quark is left by itself.
In any case, if you believe that a proton could carry mass at a size of zero, then why atom couldn't carry mass at size of zero?
It's not that an atom couldn't have mass with a size of zero. Rather, it's that an object with a size of zero is no longer an atom.
So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
Yes. If all three quarks are crushed into a singularity, then you no longer have a proton but a black hole instead. That singularity will have the charge and mass of the proton so that conservation laws are not violated.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/09/2020 16:09:51
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:49:22Yes.
So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
So, you confirm that it has a minimal size. However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
However, why do you claim that::
Who said anything about disconnecting gluons from quarks?How can you crush a proton without breaking it to its basic elements as quarks and Gluons?
In any case, what is the real function of the gluons?:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-goes-on-in-a-proton-quark-math-still-conflicts-with-experiments-20200506/
Three particles called quarks ricochet back and forth at nearly the speed of light, snapped back by interconnected strings of particles called gluons. Bizarrely, the proton’s mass must somehow arise from the energy of the stretchy gluon strings, since quarks weigh very little and gluons nothing at all.
So, it is stated clearly:
"The proton’s mass must somehow arise from the energy of the stretchy gluon strings, since quarks weigh very little and gluons nothing at all."
Therefore, the gluon is an energy that acts as some sort of stretchy strings (or if you wish a glue) that holds the proton structure.
It is clearly stated:
“We know absolutely that quarks and gluons interact with each other, but we can’t calculate” the result."
So, if you crush/break that interact between the quarks and the Gluons, we actually break the proton. In this case, we get three quarks and gluons.
However, as the Gluons is energy (not mass) then why that energy is not released at the same moment that we break the proton.
Please remember - Gluons is energy. Not mass.
It is considered as mass as long as it is in the proton.
So, if we break it from the internal interact in the proton we clearly get the three quarks mass and the energy of the gluons.
If all three quarks are crushed into a singularity, then you no longer have a proton but a black hole instead. That singularity will have the charge and mass of the proton so that conservation laws are not violated.Ok - you consider the gluons as some sort of charge.
Our scientists prefer to call it energy.
Therefore, this gluons charge/energy can't represent any sort of mass as the proton is crashed.
Why the gluons wouldn't be transformed into some sort heat or flare and lost forever without violating the energy conservation law?
Don't forget that you have stated that:
You can't have free quarks,So, at the same moment that you crush/break the proton, the gluons is lost as energy (heat or flare) while the quarks also ended their life as it is impossible to have free quarks.
In other words - at the same moment that the proton is crushed into a singularity, the gluon is transformed into pure energy (as it is energy) and as we can't have free quarks, those quarks also should transform their mass into energy.
Protons are broken all the time in particle accelerators. It's just that new quarks and anti-quarks are created in the process so that no single quark is left by itself.Well, in the accelerator the particles orbits at ultra high velocity under ultra high magnetic force.
Based on your theory, there is no magnetic field at the core of BH and the particles aren't moving as they crushed to zero point.
So, how can you compare a BH core to accelerator?
If you wish, you can compare accelerator to accretion disc.
In any case, can you please offer the article that proves that you can crush a proton to zero without breaking it to its basic elements or losing most/all of its mass into pure energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2020 18:27:23
So, you confirm that it has a minimal size. However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?A car has a minimum size- big enough to put a person in.
If you crush it then it is no longer big enough to put a person in, and thus no longer a car.
It is also not separated into its component parts.
So, as well as thinking things fall upwards, you think squeezing things together makes them spread apart.
Do you see why we are not taking your ideas very seriously?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2020 18:30:28
Ok - you consider the gluons as some sort of charge.Nobody said that.
Our scientists prefer to call it energy.Based on past evidence you have little or no idea what scientists think or do.
Therefore, this gluons charge/energy can't represent any sort of mass as the proton is crashed.Non sequitur
Why the gluons wouldn't be transformed into some sort heat or flare and lost fbecause that wouldn't be compressing stuff, it would be expanding it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2020 18:32:57
So, how can you compare a BH core to accelerator?Because, from the PoV of the proton the process is the same.
Too many protons in too small a space.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2020 21:11:32
However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
Because that doesn't make sense. The proton's constituents would be getting closer together, not further apart.
How can you crush a proton without breaking it to its basic elements as quarks and Gluons?
See above.
So, if you crush/break that interact between the quarks and the Gluons, we actually break the proton.
Nobody said anything about breaking the interaction between quarks and gluons, now did they?
Gluons is energy. Not mass.
Mass and energy are equivalent. Remember E=mc2?
Ok - you consider the gluons as some sort of charge.
I never said that.
Quote
Our scientists prefer to call it energy.
Charge and energy are different things.
Therefore, this gluons charge/energy can't represent any sort of mass as the proton is crashed.
Again, E=mc2.
Why the gluons wouldn't be transformed into some sort heat or flare and lost forever without violating the energy conservation law?
Because nothing can get out of a black hole.
So, at the same moment that you crush/break the proton, the gluons is lost as energy (heat or flare)
No.
In other words - at the same moment that the proton is crushed into a singularity, the gluon is transformed into pure energy (as it is energy) and as we can't have free quarks, those quarks also should transform their mass into energy.
The total mass and energy of the system remains the same.
the particles aren't moving as they crushed to zero point.
Being crushed is a form of movement because the constituent particles are moving closer to each other over time.
So, how can you compare a BH core to accelerator?
I wasn't. What I was doing was illustrating to you that protons can be broken into other particles.
In any case, can you please offer the article that proves that you can crush a proton to zero without breaking it to its basic elements or losing most/all of its mass into pure energy.
In some sense, the energy is released when the resulting black hole explodes into Hawking radiation. But the total energy still exists. It has just changed form from a proton into other particles.
By the way, there is no such thing as "pure energy".
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/09/2020 03:49:37
Don't you agree that there must be a limit for that "close together"?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:09:51Because that doesn't make sense. The proton's constituents would be getting closer together, not further apart.
However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
So, do you mean that it make sense to crush a proton to absolutely zero size and still maintain its structure and all its mas/energy in that zero size?
Sorry, I totally disagree with this kind of sense
If you crush a car, than you break its structure and all its internal liquid will run out.
So, even without breaking the atoms of that car, it must lose some mass (due to the fact that all the liquid had been lost).
If you crush a living animal as Bug, you break its structure and all its liquid will run out.
In the same token, if you take a proton and crush it, you completely break its structure.
Do you agree that the gluons are some sort of a "liquid energy" that glue the three quarks together?
So, it acts as a liquid in the car or a living animal.
Therefore, you can't crush a proton without squeezing its "liquid energy" out of it.
There is also a limit to the minimal size that you can get due to crushing.
You can decrease its size by 10, 1,000 or even 10,000 times.
If you take this ratio to the infinity and hope to get zero size, than you must know that you also get zero mass/energy as a left over.
Hence, don't you agree that there must be a limit for the minimal size after the crush?
So far you didn't offer any article that could support this unrealistic "sense".
How can you still keep any sort of mass/energy at zero size?
So, please again, would you kindly offer an article that proves the feasibility to crush an object (any object as Car, Bug, atom or particle) to zero size and still maintain its structure and its total mass/energy in that absolutely zero size.
It almost seems to me as a reversible Big Bang story....
Post by: Kryptid on 16/09/2020 05:57:56
Don't you agree that there must be a limit for that "close together"?
Yes. That limit could be zero.
So, do you mean that it make sense to crush a proton to absolutely zero size and still maintain its structure and all its mas/energy in that zero size?
The structure obviously wouldn't be the same, since a singularity is one object instead of many. All of the mass energy is concentrated in that single point.
If you crush a car, than you break its structure and all its internal liquid will run out.
Not if you crush it by throwing it into a black hole. That liquid can't get out of the event horizon.
So, even without breaking the atoms of that car, it must lose some mass (due to the fact that all the liquid had been lost).
No it doesn't. If all of that mass is captured behind an event horizon, it can't get out.
If you crush a living animal as Bug, you break its structure and all its liquid will run out.
You should stop likening quantum objects to macroscopic objects. They do not behave in the same manner.
Do you agree that the gluons are some sort of a "liquid energy" that glue the three quarks together?
Gluons are absolutely not "liquid energy".
Therefore, you can't crush a proton without squeezing its "liquid energy" out of it.
Yes you can. See what I said about crushing something in a black hole.
If you take this ratio to the infinity and hope to get zero size, than you must know that you also get zero mass/energy as a left over.
Non-sequitur.
Hence, don't you agree that there must be a limit for the minimal size after the crush?
I've already answered this.
So far you didn't offer any article that could support this unrealistic "sense".
I'm starting to think you don't know what an event horizon does.
How can you still keep any sort of mass/energy at zero size?
Ask an electron. They have mass and, to best of our experimental knowledge, are either point particles or are so small that they cannot be distinguished from having zero size.
So, please again, would you kindly offer an article that proves the feasibility to crush an object (any object as Car, Bug, atom or particle) to zero size and still maintain its structure and its total mass/energy in that absolutely zero size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
Nothing can get out of an event horizon, so the mass/energy of the object being crushed can't get out either (except through Hawking radiation).
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2020 08:37:22
Sorry, I totally disagree with this kind of senseYep.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/09/2020 14:29:51
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizonSorry
Nothing can get out of an event horizon, so the mass/energy of the object being crushed can't get out either (except through Hawking radiation).
The event horizon doesn't mean that all the mass of the BH is located at a zero point.
As you mentioned Hawking radiation, Let's look at the following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Black holes are astrophysical objects of interest due to their immense gravitational attraction. A black hole occurs when more than a certain amount of matter and/or energy is located within a small enough space. "
So they clearly claim the matter in the BH is located within a "small enough space".
How can you claim that this "small enough space" is Zero space?
they also add:
"Given a large enough mass in a small enough space, the gravitational forces become large enough that within a nearby region of space, nothing - not even light - can escape from inside that region to the wider universe. The boundary of that region is known as the event horizon "
So again - they only focus the boundary of that region, but they don't claim that this "small enough space" is Zero space.
Actually, in the article which you had offered it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
"The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body that fits inside this radius (although a rotating black hole operates slightly differently). The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to its mass. Theoretically, any amount of matter will become a black hole if compressed into a space that fits within its corresponding Schwarzschild radius. For the mass of the Sun this radius is approximately 3 kilometers and for the Earth it is about 9 millimeters."
So do you agree once and for all that a BH with one Sun mass would keep all its mass/matter in a radius of 3 Km?
Hence, this matter might be highly compressed and "close together" as you have stated, but it surly can't considered as a zero point.
Therefore, that compressed matter could form some sort of a very heavy an hot plasma that move or orbit at the core,
The movement of that plasma could set ultra high current.
That current should form high magnetic field.
So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
I hope that you agree that the article which you had offered fully supports theory D.
So, how could you offer this article that fully supports this theory (please, theory D - not model D)?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2020 15:56:54
The event horizon doesn't mean that all the mass of the BH is located at a zero point.Nobody said it did.
So they clearly claim the matter in the BH is located within a "small enough space".Yes.
If you put matter into a space smaller than the schwarzschild radius of that mass, then gravity shrinks it down to zero radius.
And a Black hole appears- just as it said in the text you quoted.
So do you agree once and for all that a BH with one Sun mass would keep all its mass/matter in a radius of 3 Km?No
Hence, this matter might be highly compressed and "close together" as you have stated, but it surly can't considered as a zero point.
Everything in my house is in England, but that does not mean that my house is the size of England.
Everything in a BH is within the event horizon, but that does not mean the BH is the size of the EH.
Your problem here is not to do with physics or cosmology.
You just don't understand common sense and logic.
Why do you post stuff like that?
Do you really not understand that "smaller than" doesn't rule out "much smaller than" or even " infinitely smaller than"?
they don't claim that this "small enough space" is Zero space.Nor did anyone else...
Simple question for you.
Once a black hole starts to collapse under gravity, what force in the universe is strong enough to stop it getting smaller?
Once you realise that the answer to that question is "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking", you realise it must have zero size.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/09/2020 16:28:55
So do you agree once and for all that a BH with one Sun mass would keep all its mass/matter in a radius of 3 Km?
Yes. Hence crushing a proton into a black hole does not represent a loss of mass or energy. It's all inside of an event horizon.
Hence, this matter might be highly compressed and "close together" as you have stated, but it surly can't considered as a zero point.
You can't say that it "surely" can't be zero. Like I said earlier, the limited speed of light does not allow a material body with structure to exist inside of an event horizon.
Therefore, that compressed matter could form some sort of a very heavy an hot plasma that move or orbit at the core,
No, no it cannot. See above.
So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
Because the four fundamental forces cannot overcome the speed of light limit in order to support matter against collapse inside of an event horizon.
(please, theory D - not model D)
You literally said that your model requires a miracle in order to work. That ain't a theory.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2020 03:05:49
Let's go back to the main issue in this discussion.
I have stated that the Hawing radiation and all/most of the phenomenon that we can monitor around the BH is due to the BH's magnetic field.
You have stated that as the BH mass is located at a zero Size/space it can't move and therefore, it has no ability to generate any sort of magnetic field.
I clearly don't agree with this idea.
So, if you accept the idea that a BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field, then there is no need to argue about its real size.
If not, then let's continue:
Your problem here is not to do with physics or cosmology.Well, if we discuss on a common sense, then it is very clear to me that the total mass in a zero size/volume (or zero physical radius) must be zero.
You just don't understand common sense and logic.
The Total mass is always a multiply of the density by the volume.
If The BH size is zero (physical radius is zero), then by definition its total mass must be zero.
I assume that you don't share with me this common sense.
Therefore, let me offer one more article:
In the following articale they specifically discuss about - Physical radius, Volume and density:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
The Schwarzschild radius of a body is proportional to its mass and therefore to its volume, assuming that the body has a constant mass-density.[12] In contrast, the physical radius of the body is proportional to the cube root of its volume. Therefore, as the body accumulates matter at a given fixed density (in this example, 997 kg/m3, the density of water), its Schwarzschild radius will increase more quickly than its physical radius. When a body of this density has grown to around 136 million solar masses (1.36 × 108) M☉, its physical radius would be overtaken by its Schwarzschild radius, and thus it would form a supermassive black hole."
They don't say even one word about zero space.
You can't say that it "surely" can't be zero. Like I said earlier, the limited speed of light does not allow a material body with structure to exist inside of an event horizon.In the following article it is stated that "any amount of matter will become a black hole if compressed into a space that fits within its corresponding Schwarzschild radius"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
"The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to its mass. Theoretically, any amount of matter will become a black hole if compressed into a space that fits within its corresponding Schwarzschild radius. For the mass of the Sun this radius is approximately 3 kilometers."
Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.
Unfortunately, you insist on zero size.
Simple question for you.
Once a black hole starts to collapse under gravity, what force in the universe is strong enough to stop it getting smaller?
Once you realise that the answer to that question is "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking", you realise it must have zero size.
I clearly don't agree that "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking".
However, I don't want to argue about it.
Therefore, I get excellent help from those articles.
None of them supports your assumption for zero size including the one that Kryptid had offered.
If that is correct, then why can't you offer one article that can support your idea about zero size or zero physical radius.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51Because the four fundamental forces cannot overcome the speed of light limit in order to support matter against collapse inside of an event horizon
So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2020 03:18:20
You had confused me with regards to the magnetic filed.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51You literally said that your model requires a miracle in order to work. That ain't a theory.
(please, theory D - not model D)
Based on the following clear Formula, the magnetic field is relative to 1/r with regards to Current = I
http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gif
B = μ * I / ( 2 π r)
Hence, B is affected by 1/r
You have stated that it is due to 1/r^3
That message was clearly incorrect.
As the magnetic field is relative to 1/r there is no need for any sort of miracle in order for Theory D to work.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2020 08:42:11
If that is correct, then why can't you offer one article that can support your idea about zero size or zero physical radius.We didn't need to.
Why would an article asking this question and citing this corollary
Once a black hole starts to collapse under gravity, what force in the universe is strong enough to stop it getting smaller?be any different from me pointing it out?
Once you realise that the answer to that question is "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking", you realise it must have zero size.
BTW, you still have not answered it.
Please do so before going any further with the notion of a finite sized BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2020 08:48:22
You have stated that it is due to 1/r^3The magnetic force produced by a dipole (for example, a spinning neutron star and, by analogy your idea of a magnetised, finite sized black hole) is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.
That message was clearly incorrect.
The gravitational force produced by gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
This will remain true no matter how many times you try to pretend that it isn't.
The reason for your misunderstanding seems to me that you think a BH is long and thin like a wire.
It's not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2020 08:49:26
You had confused me with regards to the magnetic filed.That's really not down to us.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2020 08:51:48
None of them supports your assumption for zero sizeYes they do
Don't you remember me explaining it?
Everything in my house is in England, but that does not mean that my house is the size of England.
Everything in a BH is within the event horizon, but that does not mean the BH is the size of the EH.
However, I don't want to argue about it.Well, if you can't argue that it's wrong, you need to accept that it's right.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2020 08:54:09
Well, if we discuss on a common sense, then it is very clear to me that the total mass in a zero size/volume (or zero physical radius) must be zero.Application of "common sense" to quantum mechanics and the like is seldom a success.
But what you were not applying it to was essentially the fact that "smaller than" includes "much smaller than".
That's simple enough for a child to understand.
Why can't you accept it?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/09/2020 16:42:41
I have stated that the Hawing radiation and all/most of the phenomenon that we can monitor around the BH is due to the BH's magnetic field.
Hawking radiation is not caused by magnetism.
So, if you accept the idea that a BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field, then there is no need to argue about its real size.
I don't accept it.
Well, if we discuss on a common sense, then it is very clear to me that the total mass in a zero size/volume (or zero physical radius) must be zero.
The Total mass is always a multiply of the density by the volume.
If The BH size is zero (physical radius is zero), then by definition its total mass must be zero.
That isn't common sense. It's a non-sequitur.
Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.
Because they are talking about the event horizon, not the singularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
If that is correct, then why can't you offer one article that can support your idea about zero size or zero physical radius.
Look at the singularity article that I just posted.
As the magnetic field is relative to 1/r there is no need for any sort of miracle in order for Theory D to work.
If you insist that a black hole has a magnetic field and use the Earth and Sun as analogues, then what you have is a magnetic dipole. The strength of the field of a magnetic dipole falls off to the cube of distance. So you still have a problem in explaining how an accretion disk is formed.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2020 19:29:58
Again in this article - not even a single word about Zero size BH.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:05:49Because they are talking about the event horizon, not the singularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.
They only claim for "Zero size" with regards to the BBT (as I was expecting)
"The classical version of the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all time-like geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe with all spatial dimensions of size zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite spacetime curvature."
So the zero size at the BBT comes with "infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite spacetime curvature."
However, our scientists do not claim for the same zero size at a BH.
Actually it is stated that: "Some theories, such as the theory of loop quantum gravity, suggest that singularities may not exist.[8] This is also true for such classical unified field theories as the Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations."
So, could it be that in our current Universe there is no real singularity?
It is also stated:
"Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of singularities means that they actually exist (or existed at the start of the Big Bang), or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities."
So, if our scientists claim that the "current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities", and they don't say even one word about zero size BH, so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???
Therefore, you still couldn't prove this wrong assumption.
Hence - do you confirm that our scientists do not support your assumption about zero size BH?
Hawking radiation is not caused by magnetism.That is a sever mistake.
You hope that Hawking radiation is only due to gravity. This is absolutely incorrect.
Without magnetism around a BH, there won't be any radiation.
You actually offered CERN as an example.
So Please - try to shut down the magnetism at CERN and see that we won't get any sort of radiation.
Magnetism is the ONLY force that can transfer energy to the new created Photons or particles.
Gravity by itself is useless for new created particles or photons.
This is your biggest mistake.
Hence, Hawking radiation or any sort of radiation won't work without Magnetism!!!
If you insist that a black hole has a magnetic field and use the Earth and Sun as analogues, then what you have is a magnetic dipole.There is big difference between the structures of the Sun to BH.
You have stated that the BH size is virtually zero.
I claim that it is not zero but close to zero.
It might be 3Km, 300m or just 3m.
However, in that ultra compact size ultra high current flows due to the Ultra hot & dense plasma.
Therefore, it acts as a wire with ultra high current.
This meets the following explanation:
http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gifThe BH and especially the SMBH is clearly not a classical dipole.
B = μ * I / ( 2 π r)
Hence, B is affected by 1/r
We see those symmetrical molecular jet streams above and below the poles.
ONLY the mighty SMBH' magnetic field can set this kind of stream.
It shows that there are two unique features:
1. The poles are located high above the physical mass of the SMBH. So, it acts as virtual poles that go all the way up to 27,000 Ly (or above).
2. As the stream are symmetrical above and below the galactic disc, the poles are changed at high frequency. It might be once a day or 100 times per second.
Please be aware that the changing frequency at the Sun is once in 11 years.
Therefore, the BH magnetic field works quite differently from the Sun or earth.
I'm not sure that we can clearly understand how the magnetism works at the BH/SMBH, but it is there at Ultra high force/field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2020 19:42:49
Again in this article - not even a single word about Zero size BH.I haven't seen many articles that refer to disease transmission in 150 to 180 cm adult humans, or to reactions of hydrogen atoms that are about 100 pm in diameter.
Why would you bother to state something that well defined (and, indeed irrelevant- even if the BH was finite, we wouldn't know about it because it would be hidden behind the EH.)
Therefore, you still couldn't prove this wrong assumption.I can prove it doesn't matter.
It's hidden behind the curtain of the EH.
You hope that Hawking radiation is only due to gravity. This is absolutely incorrect.Did you check that with Hawking?
Because, according to all the stuff I have seen Prof Hawking didn't consider that a magnetic field was needed.
If there's some other "magic" that uses a magnetic field (which the BH still doesn't have but...) then OK, so be it.
But it can't be Hawking radiation.
Magnetism is the ONLY force that can transfer energy to the new created PhotonsYou do know that photons are not affected by a magnetic field, don't you?
Magnets don't "look funny".
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2020 19:46:40
...Yay!
I'm not sure that we can clearly understand how the magnetism works at the BH/SMBH,
...
You accidentally got something right.
"At the BH" is inside the EH so we will never know what happens there.
I can postulate that all matter falling past the EH turns into unicorns.
Nobody will ever prove me wrong.
But, if I say " and because of the unicorns we will observe [whatever] " then anyone will be able to point out that I'm wrong.
Because, if I was right, that would mean information (about unicorns) leaving a BH.
And nothing ever leaves a BH.
That's how we know you are wrong about the magnetic field having any influence outside the EH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2020 19:50:49
The poles are located high above the physical mass of the SMBH. So, it acts as virtual poles that go all the way up to 27,000 LySo, you either don't know what the poles are, or you are saying that it's not the BH that's creating the field.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/09/2020 20:52:17
Again in this article - not even a single word about Zero size BH.
Read again:
Quote
While in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity", in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), known as a "ring singularity".
A point has no dimensions. It has a size of zero.
so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???
It's what general relativity predicts.
Hence - do you confirm that our scientists do not support your assumption about zero size BH?
Nope. We don't know for sure whether there is a singularity or not, but it certainly is a widely-spread idea in general relativity.
You hope that Hawking radiation is only due to gravity. This is absolutely incorrect.
Then you don't know how Hawking radiation works.
So Please - try to shut down the magnetism at CERN and see that we won't get any sort of radiation.
CERN doesn't make Hawking radiation. There's a reason that "Hawking" is in front of the word "radiation" here.
Magnetism is the ONLY force that can transfer energy to the new created Photons or particles.
Gravity by itself is useless for new created particles or photons.
This is your biggest mistake.
Hence, Hawking radiation or any sort of radiation won't work without Magnetism!!!
All unevidenced, ignorant statements.
Therefore, it acts as a wire with ultra high current.
Nope.
The BH and especially the SMBH is clearly not a classical dipole.
I agree, but only in the sense that there is no evidence that black holes have magnetic fields in the first place.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/09/2020 03:48:43
Well, a non-rotating black hole won't generate any sort of magnetic field. Therefore, we have no interest in that kind of BH.QuoteQuote
While in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity", in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), known as a "ring singularity".
A point has no dimensions. It has a size of zero.
We only focus on rotating black hole as this is the one that can generate high electric current and therefore can also generate ultra high magnetic field.
A rotating black hole can't rotate at a zero point.
As they claim that at this kind of BH "the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), known as a "ring singularity", it is clear that it can't be considered as zero point.
Hence, I hope that you agree once and for all that a "ring singularity" couldn't be considered as zero point.
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:58I agree, but only in the sense that there is no evidence that black holes have magnetic fields in the first place.
The BH and especially the SMBH is clearly not a classical dipole.
I also agree that non-rotating BH won't generate any sort of magnetic field. Not at the first place and not in the last place.
However, as I have stated, we ONLY focus on rotating BH. That one has a "ring singularity".
That ring sets magnetic filed at the same moment that it had been created.
Therefore, there is no issue of first place or last place.
Once the BH is rotating, it immediately generates magnetic field.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/09/2020 05:46:49
Hence, I hope that you agree once and for all that a "ring singularity" couldn't be considered as zero point.
This is true, but a ring singularity still has zero thickness and thus is not made up of smaller particles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity
Quote
Since a point cannot support rotation or angular momentum in classical physics (general relativity being a classical theory), the minimal shape of the singularity that can support these properties is instead a ring with zero thickness but non-zero radius, and this is referred to as a ringularity or Kerr singularity.
That ring sets magnetic filed at the same moment that it had been created.
Therefore, there is no issue of first place or last place.
Once the BH is rotating, it immediately generates magnetic field.
There's no evidence for that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/09/2020 06:48:38
This is true, but a ring singularity still has zero thickness and thus is not made up of smaller particles:
There's no evidence for that.Ok
Please see the following evidence:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAICz..40...65B
"The Kerr BH are known to be the most general isolated BH. In fact they are the ONLY BH which have a none zero magnetic field and that is why they are also referred to as "Magnetic Black Holes"
If that is still not good enough for you, then I should give up on this issue.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/09/2020 17:39:21
Ok
Please see the following evidence:
That article is talking about rotating black holes with net electric charge. Net charge on a black hole would not be expected to last long because it would preferably attract particles of the opposite charge and thus neutralize itself.
I find it quite funny that you have complained when we give you theory instead of direct observation as evidence, but now here you are giving theory instead of direct observation as evidence yourself. So why is it okay for you to use theory as evidence but not us?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/09/2020 04:03:47
That article is talking about rotating black holes with net electric charge.Do you mean that a Kerr BH is a rotatable BH with Net electric charge?
So, is there a rotatable BH without net electric charge?
However, in the article it is stated that this BH is "a none zero magnetic field", therefore they referred it as "Magnetic Black Holes"
So, why do you insist for "Net electric charge" and totally ignore the idea of "none zero magnetic field" or "Magnetic BH"?
In any case, do you finely agree that there is a possibility that a BH can carry a net electric charge or magnetic field?
If so how that BH could have any sort of "net electric charge" or magnetic field, while its dimension is zero?
Actually, what is the meaning of rotatable BH while its dimension is zero?
How any object at zero space or zero thickness could rotate?
You have stated several times that BH has no magnetic field as its dimension Must be zero.
Even in your last answer you have claimed that "ring singularity" means zero thickness:
a ring singularity still has zero thickness and thus is not made up of smaller particles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularitySo, how could it be that a ring with ZERO thickness (as you have stated) could carry any sort of electric charge or magnetic field?
I also would like to remind you that you have stated again and again that a BH must be located at a zero point:
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 17/09/2020 19:29:58It's what general relativity predicts.
so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???
You can't say that it "surely" can't be zero. Like I said earlier, the limited speed of light does not allow a material body with structure to exist inside of an event horizon.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 16/09/2020 14:29:51Because the four fundamental forces cannot overcome the speed of light limit in order to support matter against collapse inside of an event horizon.
So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
A point has no dimensions. It has a size of zero.
Based on those answers I have got the impression that any BH must have a zero dimension and there is no way to get magnetic filed out of any kind of BH.
At that time you didn't distinguish between a rotatable BH to Non-Rotatable BH.
How could it be that general relativity suddenly doesn't work when it comes to a rotatable BH?
Why the four fundamental forces that cannot overcome the speed of light limit in order to support matter against collapse inside of an event horizon, could suddenly overcome the speed of light when it comes to rotatable BH?
If you knew that a rotatable BH has Net electric charge or Magnetic field, why you didn't confirm it at the first place?
Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/09/2020 05:41:31
So, is there a rotatable BH without net electric charge?
Yes. Natural ones would be expected to quickly become neutral, even if they started out with net charge.
However, in the article it is stated that this BH is "a none zero magnetic field", therefore they referred it as "Magnetic Black Holes"
So, why do you insist for "Net electric charge" and totally ignore the idea of "none zero magnetic field" or "Magnetic BH"?
I didn't. The net electric charge is necessary for there to be a magnetic field around a black hole.
In any case, do you finely agree that there is a possibility that a BH can carry a net electric charge or magnetic field?
Possible? Yes. It's unlikely in nature, though. As I said, a black hole with net electric charge would preferentially attract oppositely-charged particles, thus rendering them neutral over time. This would make their magnetic field disappear.
So, how could it be that a ring with ZERO thickness (as you have stated) could carry any sort of electric charge or magnetic field?
Electrically-charged particle like electrons already appear to have zero size, so there's no reason a ring with zero thickness couldn't have an electric charge as well. But most importantly of all, conservation of electric charge demands that an object with a net electric charge must form an electrically-charged black hole. Charge cannot be destroyed.
A spinning electric charge produces a magnetic field, hence why a charged, rotating black hole would have a magnetic field.
I also would like to remind you that you have stated again and again that a BH must be located at a zero point:
This assumes the simplest black hole: one that does not rotate.
Based on those answers I have got the impression that any BH must have a zero dimension and there is no way to get magnetic filed out of any kind of BH.
If you had actually gotten that impression, you sure didn't show it.
How could it be that general relativity suddenly doesn't work when it comes to a rotatable BH?
It does. I don't know why you would think otherwise.
Why the four fundamental forces that cannot overcome the speed of light limit in order to support matter against collapse inside of an event horizon, could suddenly overcome the speed of light when it comes to rotatable BH?
It doesn't. The ring has collapsed to zero thickness.
If you knew that a rotatable BH has Net electric charge or Magnetic field, why you didn't confirm it at the first place?
Because rotating black holes normally would not have net electric charge or a magnetic field (for reasons I've already stated).
Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?
I have not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/09/2020 18:03:16
So, would you kindly backup you answer/understanding with real articles?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47I have not.
Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47Yes. Natural ones would be expected to quickly become neutral, even if they started out with net charge.
So, is there a rotatable BH without net electric charge?
Well, let's read again the following article:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAICz..40...65B
"There us ever increasing evidence that black holes play the central role in number of astronomical phenomena connected in particular, with extragalactic sources (see…) .Although one does not expect Black holes to carry a significant charge, some numerical works suggests (Damour 1987) that if the collapsing neutral body is rotating and magnetized, charge separation may occur and the resulting rotatable Black hole carries a non-vanishing charge and magnetic field."
It is stated clearly that "if the collapsing neutral body is rotating and magnetized, charge separation may occur..."
So, it is expected that first the neutral body would be a rotatable and magnetized.
In that stage it should carry charge as you have stated:
A spinning electric charge produces a magnetic field, hence why a charged, rotating black hole would have a magnetic field.So, without electric charged that neutral body would be a magnetized at the first place
Hence, first we start from a neutral body that is rotating, magnetized (and have electric charged), and just after the collapse the charge separation may occur.
Then it is stated: "and the resulting rotatable Black hole carries a non-vanishing charge and magnetic field
So, we have started with a rotatable, charged & magnetized body and just after the collapse process we have got a rotatable BH which carry NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field.
What is the meaning of NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field?
Could it be that it means "non-disappear", "steady", "constant" or "stable"?
You even add that "Charge cannot be destroyed":
But most importantly of all, conservation of electric charge demands that an object with a net electric charge must form an electrically-charged black hole. Charge cannot be destroyed.So why you add you interpretation that the charge should be vanish quickly as it is "expected to quickly become neutral"?
As I said, a black hole with net electric charge would preferentially attract oppositely-charged particles, thus rendering them neutral over time. This would make their magnetic field disappear.How could it be that a "NON-VANISHING (or NON-disappear) electric charged and magnetic field" as explained in the article had been transformed in your answer to quickly VANISHING charge and magnetic field or "magnetic field disappear"?
Would you kindly backup this understanding by real article about the process activity at a magnetized rotatable BH?
If they say that it is non- disappear why do you take the freedom to change it to: "disappear?
Please also be aware that they even call this object: "Magnetic Black Holes"
So, would you kindly show the evidence why this "Magnetic Black Holes" should disappear quickly?
Electrically-charged particle like electrons already appear to have zero size, so there's no reason a ring with zero thickness couldn't have an electric charge as well.Well, what is the meaning of a ring with zero thickness?
If the thickness is zero, why can't we assume that there is no ring?
If I will tell you that there is a chair with a zero thickness, would you try to sit on it?
So, if the thickness of the ring is zero, how could it be that a zero size charge would sit on that zero thickness ring?
Is it real or imagination?
If a BH has real mass, real magnetic field and real electric charge, how can you fit all of it in zero thickness even if we call it ring?
You can call it zero point, zero ring, zero star, zero BH or even zero universe.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47This assumes the simplest black hole:
I also would like to remind you that you have stated again and again that a BH must be located at a zero point:
In all of them the zero is absolutely the same.
Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.
The only exception that our scientists have offered with regards to zero point is at the Big Bang story.
They claim that an energy (not mass) could exist at Zero point and ONLY during the Big Bang.
As I have stated before, in none of the articles that you had offered it was stated that a BH has a zero size.
Is it your personal understanding or do you base it on real science?
So, please, if you still believe that you can fit mass and energy in zero point or zero ring, than please show the evidence for that by real article.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/09/2020 18:04:53
So, would you kindly backup you answer/understanding with real articles?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47I have not.
Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47Yes. Natural ones would be expected to quickly become neutral, even if they started out with net charge.
So, is there a rotatable BH without net electric charge?
Well, let's read again the following article:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAICz..40...65B
"There us ever increasing evidence that black holes play the central role in number of astronomical phenomena connected in particular, with extragalactic sources (see…) .Although one does not expect Black holes to carry a significant charge, some numerical works suggests (Damour 1987) that if the collapsing neutral body is rotating and magnetized, charge separation may occur and the resulting rotatable Black hole carries a non-vanishing charge and magnetic field."
It is stated clearly that "if the collapsing neutral body is rotating and magnetized, charge separation may occur..."
So, it is expected that first the neutral body would be a rotatable and magnetized.
In that stage it should carry charge as you have stated:
A spinning electric charge produces a magnetic field, hence why a charged, rotating black hole would have a magnetic field.So, without electric charged that neutral body won't be a magnetized at the first place
Hence, first we start from a neutral body that is rotating, magnetized (and have electric charged), and just after the collapse the charge separation may occur.
Then it is stated: "and the resulting rotatable Black hole carries a non-vanishing charge and magnetic field
So, we have started with a rotatable, charged & magnetized body and just after the collapse process we have got a rotatable BH which carry NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field.
What is the meaning of NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field?
Could it be that it means "non-disappear", "steady", "constant" or "stable"?
You even add that "Charge cannot be destroyed":
But most importantly of all, conservation of electric charge demands that an object with a net electric charge must form an electrically-charged black hole. Charge cannot be destroyed.So why you add you interpretation that the charge should be vanish quickly as it is "expected to quickly become neutral"?
As I said, a black hole with net electric charge would preferentially attract oppositely-charged particles, thus rendering them neutral over time. This would make their magnetic field disappear.How could it be that a "NON-VANISHING (or NON-disappear) electric charged and magnetic field" as explained in the article had been transformed in your answer to quickly VANISHING charge and magnetic field or "magnetic field disappear"?
Would you kindly backup this understanding by real article about the process activity at a magnetized rotatable BH?
If they say that it is non- disappear why do you take the freedom to change it to: "disappear?
Please also be aware that they even call this object: "Magnetic Black Holes"
So, would you kindly show the evidence why this "Magnetic Black Holes" should disappear quickly?
Electrically-charged particle like electrons already appear to have zero size, so there's no reason a ring with zero thickness couldn't have an electric charge as well.Well, what is the meaning of a ring with zero thickness?
If the thickness is zero, why can't we assume that there is no ring?
If I will tell you that there is a chair with a zero thickness, would you try to sit on it?
So, if the thickness of the ring is zero, how could it be that a zero size charge would sit on that zero thickness ring?
Is it real or imagination?
If a BH has real mass, real magnetic field and real electric charge, how can you fit all of it in zero thickness even if we call it ring?
You can call it zero point, zero ring, zero star, zero BH or even zero universe.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47This assumes the simplest black hole:
I also would like to remind you that you have stated again and again that a BH must be located at a zero point:
In all of them the zero is absolutely the same.
Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.
The only exception that our scientists have offered with regards to zero point is at the Big Bang story.
They claim that an energy (not mass) could exist at Zero point and ONLY during the Big Bang.
As I have stated before, in none of the articles that you had offered it was stated that a BH has a zero size.
Is it your personal understanding or do you base it on real science?
So, please, if you still believe that you can fit mass and energy in zero point or zero ring, than please show the evidence for that by real article.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/09/2020 18:16:45
Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.Obviously, no.
The electron has zero size but has a mass and a charge.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/09/2020 20:46:40
So, would you kindly backup you answer/understanding with real articles?
I have.
So, without electric charged that neutral body won't be a magnetized at the first place
Right.
What is the meaning of NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field?
It means that it has a charge and a magnetic field. "Non-vanishing" is just another way of saying "it isn't zero".
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Nonvanishing.html
Could it be that it means "non-disappear", "steady", "constant" or "stable"?
No.
You even add that "Charge cannot be destroyed":
Right, but it can be neutralized by opposite charges.
So why you add you interpretation that the charge should be vanish quickly as it is "expected to quickly become neutral"?
I already told you. Go back and read my replies if you've forgotten that quickly.
If they say that it is non- disappear
They never did.
So, would you kindly show the evidence why this "Magnetic Black Holes" should disappear quickly?
I already explained it.
Well, what is the meaning of a ring with zero thickness?
I don't know why the meaning isn't clear to you. You know what thickness means, don't you? A doughnut is thicker than a wedding ring. Both are ring shapes.
If the thickness is zero, why can't we assume that there is no ring?
It has mass and angular momentum, so it exists.
If I will tell you that there is a chair with a zero thickness, would you try to sit on it?
No form of matter that is stable at standard conditions can have zero thickness, so your hypothetical chair couldn't exist in the first place.
So, if the thickness of the ring is zero, how could it be that a zero size charge would sit on that zero thickness ring?
Is it real or imagination?
If a BH has real mass, real magnetic field and real electric charge, how can you fit all of it in zero thickness even if we call it ring?
Charge and mass are properties of objects. They don't have a size. Asking how they can "fit" somewhere doesn't make sense.
Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.
You have asked this before and my answer has not changed since then: no.
They claim that an energy (not mass)
E=mc2.
As I have stated before, in none of the articles that you had offered it was stated that a BH has a zero size.
Then you didn't read reply 876.
Is it your personal understanding or do you base it on real science?
It's real science.
So, please, if you still believe that you can fit mass and energy in zero point or zero ring, than please show the evidence for that by real article.
Properties don't have a size.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/09/2020 05:01:52
Do you mean particle Properties?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:04:53Properties don't have a size.
So, please, if you still believe that you can fit mass and energy in zero point or zero ring, than please show the evidence for that by real article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
"in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[7]"
As due to quantum mechanics we can't fit even one particle at a zero physical size point, how can we fit the whole trillions over trillions of particles of just one sun mass in a BH with zero physical size point?
Please, would you kindly direct me to an article that shows how to fit those trillions particles in a zero physical size while it is clear that "quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/09/2020 06:54:07
Do you mean particle Properties?
Yes. Charge and mass don't have a size.
"in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[7]"
As due to quantum mechanics we can't fit even one particle at a zero physical size point, how can we fit the whole trillions over trillions of particles of just one sun mass in a BH with zero physical size point?
Please, would you kindly direct me to an article that shows how to fit those trillions particles in a zero physical size while it is clear that "quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"?
The concept of a particle's size isn't exactly well-defined. In some experiments, particles appear to be points of zero size. In others, they appear to be waves with a defined wavelength. This is known as wave-particle duality. How quantum mechanics and relativity are reconciled inside of a black hole is not known at this time.
To your credit, it is very possible that black holes do not collapse to zero size, but that quantum mechanics prevents them from shrinking below a size around the Planck length. This is an unresolved issue in science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2020 11:21:36
To your credit, it is very possible that black holes do not collapse to zero sizeIt looks like he finally did what was suggested a while ago.
You really need to look up what black holes are like.
Since there is nothing which is strong enough to counter their gravity, they collapse down to point sized objects.
Maybe they are as big as the planck length, but they certainly are not bigger.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/09/2020 13:52:56
This is known as wave-particle duality.I have tried to learn this issue and found the following explanation:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15280/1/Wave-ParticleDuality2.pdf
"Entities in physics are discrete; both the mass particle and the energy photon are quantized. Entities have a dimensional presence in the sense of occupying (residing in) a dimension; the particle requires a space interval (volume), photon oscillation requires a time interval."
So it is stated very clearly that particle requires a space interval (volume). Hence, it must have real dimensional presence in the sense of occupying (residing in) a dimension
therefore, don't you agree that we can't set a particle at a zero size. If a particle is losing its minimal dimension in space it can't be considered any more as the same particle with the same mass at it used to be.
How quantum mechanics and relativity are reconciled inside of a black hole is not known at this time.If it is not known at this time, why are you so sure that you can fit trillions of particles at zero size?
As "quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths", then it should be very clear to all of us that any particle requires a space interval (volume) wherever it is. It could be at the open space, at the surface of the sun, at the core of the BH and even at the core of the biggest SMBH in the whole Universe. There is no way for particles to "inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths".
To your credit, it is very possible that black holes do not collapse to zero size,Thanks
Do appreciate.
but that quantum mechanics prevents them from shrinking below a size around the Planck length.Well, "quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths" If that size is around the Planck length than your answer is correct.
However, if we take trillions over trillions of particles (each one at size of Planck length) we might get a significant volume. It is surly not zero.
The concept of a particle's size isn't exactly well-defined.Sorry, it is perfectly defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
"in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[7]"
In some experiments, particles appear to be points of zero size.Which kind of experiments?
Please offer the relevant article.
This is an unresolved issue in scienceWhy do you claim that it is an unresolved issue in science?
We have a perfect answer from quantum mechanics:
There is no way for particles to "inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths".
Once we understand that simple explanation by quantum mechanics, we can easily calculate the real size of mass in any BH or SMBH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2020 14:29:43
Sorry, it is perfectly defined:No, it is not.
Why do you claim that it is an unresolved issue in science?We don't know the answer.
There is no way for particles to "inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths".Go on then
Once we understand that simple explanation by quantum mechanics, we can easily calculate the real size of mass in any BH or SMBH.
Calculate, as an example, the size of any black hole you like.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/09/2020 15:53:46
Calculate, as an example, the size of any black hole you like.Very easy
Let's assume that we have a BH with one Sun mass.
The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000
The main mass in each nuclease is due to one proton.
Therefore, assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons while in the sun there are only Hydrogen atoms:
Then, the total physical radius of a BH with one sun mass is:
Sun radius / 10,000 = 696,340 /10,000 = 69.9 Km.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2020 16:10:06
The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000You made that number up.
So that's not really an estimate of the size of the BH; at best, it is a guess.
"
assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons"
We know that's not true, because, even neutron stars (which are less compact than BH don't have free protons any more.
Do you remember saying this
Once we understand that simple explanation by quantum mechanics, we can easily calculate the real size of mass in any BH
Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.
Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/09/2020 17:31:22
Quote
Nevertheless, there is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure, not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle, in this sense, is exactly zero.
Therefore, assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons
They're not.
Then, the total physical radius of a BH with one sun mass is:
Sun radius / 10,000 = 696,340 /10,000 = 69.9 Km.
Wrong. It's actually 2.95 kilometers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius#Parameters
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/09/2020 19:36:41
It is real:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46You made that number up.
The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000
So that's not really an estimate of the size of the BH; at best, it is a guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius
Under most definitions the radii of isolated neutral atoms range between 30 and 300 pm (trillionths of a meter), or between 0.3 and 3 ångströms. Therefore, the radius of an atom is more than 10,000 times the radius of its nucleus (1–10 fm),[2] and less than 1/1000 of the wavelength of visible light (400–700 nm).
So, the ratio between the nucleus to its atom is one to 10,000 or more.
Based on one to 10,000 we have got that radius of 68Km.
However, it is stated more than 10,000. Therefore, if the real ratio is one to 200,000 than we should get a radius of about 3.4 Km.
It is all about the ratio between the size of the hydrogen atom to its Proton.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46Wrong. It's actually 2.95 kilometers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius#Parameters
Then, the total physical radius of a BH with one sun mass is:
Sun radius / 10,000 = 696,340 /10,000 = 69.9 Km.
At a ratio of one to 235,000 we get exactly that 2.95 Km.
We know that's not true, because, even neutron stars (which are less compact than BH don't have free protons any more.Thanks for that excellent message.
Yes, a star is made by atoms and molecular while BH is made out of particles as Protons.
That proves that BH would never ever be created out of collapsing star.
Atom wouldn't give up its physical size not even due to supernova or ultra high gravity.
So, a star could be very massive without any need to collapse and transfer into BH.
Just as an example, one of the biggest star has 1700 times the Sun radius (and it is still a star)
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html
"The largest known star in the universe is UY Scuti, a hypergiant with a radius around 1,700 times larger than the sun."
Hence, a star can be very massive and it would never be converted to BH.
Can you please prove that a BH is not made out of particles as protonsQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46They're not.
Therefore, assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2020 21:26:31
It is real:It's a real number, but it's a measure of the wrong thing.
At a ratio of one to 235,000 we get exactly that 2.95 Km.So, by picking the right number, you get the right answer.
But you picked that number by knowing what the answer is.
That's not very useful.
And it's not science.
Yes, a star is made by atoms and molecular while BH is made out of particles as Protons.No it isn't.
That proves that BH would never ever be created out of collapsing star.Even if it was true, it still wouldn't prove that.
Atom wouldn't give up its physical size not even due to supernova or ultra high gravity.And again...
what would stop it?
Just as an example, one of the biggest star has 1700 times the Sun radius (and it is still a star)The reason it is a star and not a BH is that it is too big- too spread out.
Give it time.
Can you please prove that a BH is not made out of particles as protonsI already did.
You noted that it was a good point.
And then you misinterpreted it.
In the meantime, for the third time of asking.
Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.
Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/09/2020 22:55:47
It is all about the ratio between the size of the hydrogen atom to its Proton.
No, it isn't. That doesn't have anything to do with the Schwarzschild radius.
BH is made out of particles as Protons.
No, they aren't.
That proves that BH would never ever be created out of collapsing star.
Non-sequitur. How do you think black holes are created in the first place?
Atom wouldn't give up its physical size not even due to supernova or ultra high gravity.
And yet that's exactly what happens when a star goes supernova and becomes a neutron star.
So, a star could be very massive without any need to collapse and transfer into BH.
If it's massive enough, it would have to.
Just as an example, one of the biggest star has 1700 times the Sun radius (and it is still a star)
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html
"The largest known star in the universe is UY Scuti, a hypergiant with a radius around 1,700 times larger than the sun."
Hence, a star can be very massive and it would never be converted to BH.
You know that mass and size are different things, don't you? Do you even know what the Schwarzschild radius is?
Can you please prove that a BH is not made out of particles as protons
First of all, they can't be made out of protons because the matter that collapses to form them contains both protons and electrons. Under sufficient pressure, protons capture those electrons and become neutrons. This is what forms neutron stars. Neutron stars are held up by neutron degeneracy pressure. However, the degeneracy pressure has a finite strength. If the star is too massive, gravity will overwhelm degeneracy pressure and crush those particles. That's the kind of conditions you find inside of a black hole.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2020 04:55:37
Before we continue to any new idea, let's close the highlight of our discussion.
Do we all agree that a BH has a real physical size?
Therefore, as it is stated in the following article:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAICz..40...65B
"The Kerr BH are known to be the most general isolated BH. In fact they are the ONLY BH which have a none zero magnetic field and that is why they are also referred to as "Magnetic Black Holes"
A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"
Please, yes or no?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/09/2020 06:07:10
Do we all agree that a BH has a real physical size?
Depends on whether you mean the singularity or the event horizon.
A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"
Please, yes or no?
If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2020 14:07:18
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37
A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"
Please, yes or no?
If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.
Do appreciate
So, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2020 14:32:46
That kind of BH is the leading power for any new creation particles in our Universe.
Hawking claims that negative + positive mass particles are created due to gravity.
This is a fatal error.
There are no negative mass in our universe.
Negative mass is just a fiction.
Any new particle creation must be based on two particles (both with positive mass) but with opposite charge.
Their creation could be take place ONLY by using the energy transformation from the magnetic BH.
If we shut down the magnetic field of the BH, not even a single photon would be created by gravity.
So, a BH without magnetic field wouldn't be able to create any sort of new particle.
Therefore, any BH with accretion ring is by definition a magnetic BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2020 17:39:33
Briefly.Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37Thanks
A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"
Please, yes or no?
If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.
Do appreciate
So, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2020 17:42:19
In the meantime, for the third time of asking.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:10:06
Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.
Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2020 19:25:42
Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.It is all about the ratio between the size of proton with regards to the size of Hydrogen Atom.
Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
I only know that it should be more than 10,000.
How more is not fully clear at this stage.
Do you have an idea what is the correct ratio?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/09/2020 20:19:29
So, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.
But there isn't any significant electric charge on natural black holes. At least not ones that have been around for very long.
That kind of BH is the leading power for any new creation particles in our Universe.
Hawking claims that negative + positive mass particles are created due to gravity.
This is a fatal error.
There are no negative mass in our universe.
Negative mass is just a fiction.
And, as expected, you have no idea how Hawking radiation works.
Any new particle creation must be based on two particles (both with positive mass)
That would violate conservation of mass, so we know it isn't true.
Their creation could be take place ONLY by using the energy transformation from the magnetic BH.
If we shut down the magnetic field of the BH, not even a single photon would be created by gravity.
So, a BH without magnetic field wouldn't be able to create any sort of new particle.
Therefore, any BH with accretion ring is by definition a magnetic BH.
Wrong, as usual.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2020 20:57:51
Do you have an idea what is the correct ratio?Why do you imagine it's a ratio?
Surely you must understand that, at the least, with more mass- and thus more gravity the effect should be bigger.
So the compression factor would depend on the initial size. A bigger star would compress more.
But remember- you are the one who said this was easy- so get on with it.
It is all about the ratio between the size of proton with regards to the size of Hydrogen Atom.Why would it be just protons?
Like most of your posts, that makes no sense, does it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2020 21:19:21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
It seems that Neutron star fully meets my expectation about a magnetic rotatable BH.
Size - "A 2 M☉ neutron star would not be more compact than 10,970 meters radius (AP4 model). Its mass fraction gravitational binding energy would then be 0.187, −18.7% (exothermic). This is not near 0.6/2 = 0.3, −30%."
Magnetic field- "The neutron stars known as magnetars have the strongest magnetic fields, in the range of 10^8 to 10^11 tesla,[32] "
Density and pressure- "Neutron stars have overall densities of 3.7×1017 to 5.9×1017 kg/m3 (2.6×1014 to 4.1×1014 times the density of the Sun),[c] which is comparable to the approximate density of an atomic nucleus of 3×1017 kg/m3"
Rotation - "Neutron stars are known that have rotation periods from about 1.4 ms to 30 s."
Jet Beam - "If the axis of rotation of the neutron star is different to the magnetic axis, external viewers will only see these beams of radiation whenever the magnetic axis point towards them during the neutron star rotation."
Do you remember the Molecular Jet stream that we see above and below the galactic disc?
That exactly what we get from a Neutron star due to its powerful magnetic field.
New particles creation at the accretion disc (or thin cylinder) - "Photons can merge or split in two, and virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are produced. The field changes electron energy levels and atoms are forced into thin cylinders."
Those new created partials fully meets my explanation about the idea that a pair with positive mass and opposite polarity are created due to magnetic field.
Made by atomic nucleus - "A neutron star has some of the properties of an atomic nucleus, including density (within an order of magnitude) and being composed of nucleons. In popular scientific writing, neutron stars are therefore sometimes described as "giant nuclei".
Therefore, after all it seems that I was fully correct. In my vision I thought about rotatable (Kerr) BH while our scientists call it neutron star.
So what is the real difference between Neutron star to rotatable magnetic BH?
We really don't see them both.
We only see the activity around them and it is almost identical.
So, how do we know that our estimation about each physical size is correct?
How can we distinguish between the two objects?
Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/09/2020 22:10:23
It seems that Neutron star fully meets my expectation about a magnetic rotatable BH.
Neutron stars are not black holes. They don't have event horizons.
Therefore, after all it seems that I was fully correct. In my vision I thought about rotatable (Kerr) BH while our scientists call it neutron star.
No. Neutron stars are not black holes.
So what is the real difference between Neutron star to rotatable magnetic BH?
Neutron stars have a solid surface. Black holes don't. Black holes can also be significantly more massive than neutron stars.
So, how do we know that our estimation about each physical size is correct?
The laws of physics.
How can we distinguish between the two objects?
Mass. Anything more than about 2.16 times the mass of a neutron star is a black hole. A neutron star cannot withstand such high levels of mass without collapsing into a black hole. Neutron degeneracy pressure simply isn't strong enough to support it against such crushing gravity.
Also, neutron stars are very hot, especially immediately after they have formed (millions of degrees). That would make their surfaces glow brightly. A black hole with the same mass as a neutron star would be completely black, by contrast. The Hawking radiation it emits would be very cool, low frequency radio waves. We've already taken a picture of the black hole at the center of our galaxy (Sagittarius A*), and it is black (as expected). It is absolutely not a neutron star.
Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?
I absolutely, positively do not!
Coincidentally, a study was recently done that can distinguish black holes from neutron stars: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-x-rays-reveal-a-distinctive-signature-of-black-hole-event-horizons/
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2020 22:17:06
It seems that Neutron star fully meets my expectation about a magnetic rotatable BH.Except... it isn't one.
It's not dense enough.
I already pointed this out.
We know that's not true, because, even neutron stars (which are less compact than BH don't have free protons any more.You even said
"
Thanks for that excellent message."
But now, it seems you have forgotten it.
So what is the real difference between Neutron star to rotatable magnetic BH?Well, for one thing, the ,magnetic field of a neutron star lasts long enough to produce observable effects.
Also- here's a hint- neutron stars are not black.
Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?No.
Two reasons.
1) You can't remove the magnetic field from a neutron star without it stopping being one.
2) You need to increase the density a bit.
Well, quite a lot actually.
About 10^114 fold
That's not a typo.
You are wrong by a factor of roughly 1 with 114 zeroes.
The radius of a neutron star is about 10 km
That of a BH is about the Planck length (if you are lucky) that's 10^-34 M
So that's a ratio of about 10^38
And the volume (and thus density) scale with the cube of the radius.
So that's (10^38) ^ 3
which is 10^114
How wrong are you going to be before you get embarrassed?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/09/2020 17:17:03
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:21
Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?
I absolutely, positively do not!
Coincidentally, a study was recently done that can distinguish black holes from neutron stars: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-x-rays-reveal-a-distinctive-signature-of-black-hole-event-horizons/
In the following article it is stated:
https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-x-rays-reveal-a-distinctive-signature-of-black-hole-event-horizons/
"A black hole is an exotic cosmic object without a hard surface predicted by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Although it does not have a surface, it is confined within an invisible boundary, called an event horizon, from within which nothing, not even light, can escape. Definitive proof of the existence of such objects is a holy grail of modern physics and astronomy."
So, the main difference between BH to Neutron star is the idea that a BH has a soft surface while Neutron star has hard surface.
Why is it?
Why Einstein’s theory of General Relativity doesn't predict a hard surface for a BH but only for Neutron star?
In any case, it is also stated that there is no proof for that as it is just a theoretical concept which had not been validated yet.
So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?
They also claim:
Using the archival X-ray data from the now decommissioned astronomy satellite Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer, they have identified the effect of the lack of hard surface on the observed X-ray emission, and thus have found an extremely strong signature of accreting stellar-mass black holes."
So, it is all about X-ray radiation.
With regards to the graph of X-ray it is stated:
"The graph shows measured values of two source properties – electron temperature and Comptonization parameter – from many X-ray observations of about two dozens of black holes and neutron stars. It is clearly seen that the black hole (red symbols) and the neutron star (blue symbols) are almost entirely separated in an unprecedented manner, thus identifying the black holes indubitably. Credit: Srimanta Banerjee, Sudip Bhattacharyya, Marat Gilfanov"What is the meaning of "Comptonization parameter" in that X-ray graph?
How do they know that the red dots represent Neutron stars while the Blue represent BHs?
What is there in that "Comptonization parameter" that shows which one has Hard surface and which one has a soft surface?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2020 17:29:55
A black hole is an exotic cosmic object without a hard surfaceSo; not like a neutron star then...
Definitive proof of the existence of such objects is a holy grail of modern physics and astronomy."We have pictures etc.
So, the main difference between BH to Neutron star is the idea that a BH has a soft surface while Neutron star has hard surface.No. It's not clear that a black hole has a surface at all, but to the extent that it does, it's the hardest surface there is. Nothing survives an impact with it.
The difference is that one is a black hole and the other is a neutron star.
We already explained this to you, at some length.
It's just plain bad mannered of you to ignore that.
So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?
In reality. we have evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Starquake
Why don't you learn about things rather than making up nonsense?
from many X-ray observations of about two dozens of black holes and neutron stars. It is clearly seen that the black hole (red symbols) and the neutron star (blue symbols) are almost entirely separated in an unprecedented manner,Yes; that's even more reason to recognise that they are not the same thing.
"What is the meaning of "Comptonization parameter" in that X-ray graph?It's a thing you should either learn about or accept.
How do they know that the red dots represent Neutron stars while the Blue represent BHs?From the other differences between the two types of objects.
It's as if there's a paper that says "apples produce fewer terpenes than oranges" and you are saying that, because you don't understand what "terpene" means, the two fruit must be the same.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/09/2020 17:59:14
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:17:03Really?
So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?
In reality. we have evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Starquake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Starquake
It is stated:
"Starquakes are thought to result from two different mechanisms:
One is the huge stresses exerted on the surface of the neutron star produced by twists in the ultra-strong interior magnetic fields.
A second cause is a result of spindown. As the neutron star loses angular velocity due to frame-dragging and by the bleeding off of energy due to it being a rotating magnetic dipole,"
Hence, based on "one" it is due to magnetic field, based on "second cause" it is due to rotating magnetic dipole.
Therefore, it is all about magnetic - in one way or the other.
It is also stated:
"The quake, which occurred 50,000 light years from Earth, released gamma rays equivalent to 1037 kW. Had it occurred within a distance of 10 light years from Earth, the quake could have triggered a mass extinction.["
This is very similar to a "flare" at a BH or even a SMBH.
In both cases there is high release of gamma rays.
So, why that gamma rays or quake in a neutron star gives an indication about the crust of that Neutron star, while when we see a similar/identical gamma rays phenomenon (that we call "flare") from a BH we don't claim that it gives any indication about its crust?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/09/2020 21:18:42
So, the main difference between BH to Neutron star is the idea that a BH has a soft surface while Neutron star has hard surface.
No, that is not the main difference. The main difference is that one has its mass inside of its own Schwarzschild radius while the other does not.
Why is it?
Because one has an escape velocity exceeding that of light and the other does not.
Why Einstein’s theory of General Relativity doesn't predict a hard surface for a BH but only for Neutron star?
Because no solid structure can withstand the forces in a black hole.
In any case, it is also stated that there is no proof for that as it is just a theoretical concept which had not been validated yet.
As I have stated many, many times, there is no such thing as proof in science. However, every single bit of evidence to date supports it.
So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?
It is absolutely realistic because not only is that exactly what the known laws of physics predicts, but observations support it.
How do they know that the red dots represent Neutron stars while the Blue represent BHs?
Mass.
So, why that gamma rays or quake in a neutron star gives an indication about the crust of that Neutron star, while when we see a similar/identical gamma rays phenomenon (that we call "flare") from a BH we don't claim that it gives any indication about its crust?
Because it is literally impossible for a black hole to have a crust.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2020 21:42:40
This is very similar to a...No; it's not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/09/2020 04:21:33
Are you sure about it?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:59:14No; it's not.
This is very similar to a "flare" at a BH or even a SMBH.
In the following article it is stated:
https://www.uab.cat/web/newsroom/news-detail/registry-of-unusual-black-hole-gamma-ray-flares-1345668003610.html?noticiaid=1345677915100
"The MAGIC telescopes on the island of La Palma registered the fastest gamma ray flares seen to date, produced in the vicinity of a super-massive black hole"
So, do you agree that:
" the fastest gamma ray flares seen to date, produced in the vicinity of a super-massive black hole"?
If yes, do you confirm a Flare from a BH or SMBH means "gamma ray"?
As BH (Black Hole) and NS (Neutron Star) are producing Gamma Ray, why do you claim that that they are different?
So, let me ask again::
So, why that gamma rays or quake in a neutron star gives an indication about the crust of that Neutron star, while when we see a similar/identical gamma rays phenomenon (that we call "flare") from a BH we don't claim that it gives any indication about its crust?
As I have stated many, many times, there is no such thing as proof in science. However, every single bit of evidence to date supports it.Which kind of evidence?
Do you mean Gamma ray?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2020 05:36:55
So, let me ask again::
And let me answer again:
Because it is literally impossible for a black hole to have a crust.
Which kind of evidence?
Do you mean Gamma ray?
Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived), the photograph of Sagittarius A* that shows it to be black instead of glowing hot and the measurement of a neutron star's radius (which shows that it isn't inside of its own Schwarzschild radius) are some good ones.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
So, let me ask again::Why should we?
You keep asking stuff that we have already answered.
Wouldn't it be better all round if you actually did some sort of study.
Once you actually understand the physics you will be able to ask better questions and also you might not keep asking the same ones.
Obviously, that's not the same as repeatedly asking questions that don't get answered so, let's start with this
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/09/2020 18:56:12
Step by step:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:21:33Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived), the photograph of Sagittarius A* that shows it to be black instead of glowing hot and the measurement of a neutron star's radius (which shows that it isn't inside of its own Schwarzschild radius) are some good ones.
Which kind of evidence?
Do you mean Gamma ray?
1. Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived) - There is no upper mass limit for a NS.
For example, the following star has 215 Sun mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1
So, if stars could be so big without any difficulty, there is no problem for a NS to become a Supper Massive NS with 4* 10^6 Sun mass.
2. The photograph of Sagittarius A* that shows it to be black instead of glowing hot - NS can be as cold as BH. It is all about Magnetic field. If it has strong magnetic field it should be hot. If its magnetic field is low, it would be quite cold.
3. The measurement of a neutron star's radius (which shows that it isn't inside of its own Schwarzschild radius) are some good ones - Sorry this is just hypothetical idea. We have no evidence that the radius of the physical size of a BH is shorter than the one of the NS. You even confirmed that it can't be zero. So, the physical radius of a BH is just a theoretical idea which had not been ever confirmed.
4. Gamma Ray - I have proved that Both BH and NS have Gamma Ray.
5. Crust - as the whole idea was that a gamma ray of the NS is an indication for hard crust, while the BH has the same gamma ray, then it shows that they share the same crust.
Therefore -
Any BH is actually a Neutron star with or without magnetic field.
Any SMBH is actually SMNS.
There is nothing that a SMBH can do which SMNS can't do.
Therefore, there is no BH in our universe. Only NS and SMNS.
However, there is no need to argue about it.
Once you agree that a BH/NS or SMBH/SMNS has magnetic field that sets the flare gamma ray and the Molecular jet stream, this is perfectly Ok with me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 19:26:34
Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived) - There is no upper mass limit for a NS.So, you don't understand that it's a density thing rather than a mass thing?
For example, the following star has 215 Sun mass.
Why is that?
Have you not looked into it?
- NS can be as cold as BH.No
They haven't had time to cool down yt.
Incidentally, speaking of time.
When do you plan to answer this?
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 19:28:28
However, there is no need to argue about it.Indeed, you could just accept that you are wrong.
But, in spite of regularly demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about, you think you are the one who is right.
That's psychotic.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2020 19:57:29
There is no upper mass limit for a NS.
Please stop talking about things that you don't know anything about.
So, if stars could be so big without any difficulty, there is no problem for a NS to become a Supper Massive NS with 4* 10^6 Sun mass.
Normal stars are supported against collapse by the heat from nuclear fusion. Neutron stars don't have that. You can't apply to one what you can apply to the other.
NS can be as cold as BH
Not within the current age of the Universe it can't. They would not have had enough time to cool off that much.
If it has strong magnetic field it should be hot.
That is not what makes a neutron star hot. Neutron stars are hot because they are formed from the collapse of stellar matter. That generates a massive amount of heat.
Sorry this is just hypothetical idea.
No. No it is not: https://phys.org/news/2020-03-neutron-star-kilometers-radius.html#:~:text=%22We%20find%20that%20the%20typical,between%2010.4%20and%2011.9%20kilometers.
5. Crust - as the whole idea was that a gamma ray of the NS is an indication for hard crust, while the BH has the same gamma ray, then it shows that they share the same crust.
Are you blind or just willfully ignorant?
it is literally impossible for a black hole to have a crust.
Any BH is actually a Neutron star with or without magnetic field.
Absolutely not.
If its magnetic field is low, it would be quite cold.
And yet you claim that Sagittarius A* has a strong magnetic field. But it's still black. Stop being ridiculous.
There is nothing that a SMBH can do which SMNS can't do.
Neutron stars can't generate Hawking radiation (which requires the presence of an event horizon), so you're shooting yourself in the foot by claiming that all black holes are neutron stars (which is impossible).
When are you going to stop spouting anti-scientific nonsense? You seem to be under the impression that anything that has not been directly observed can be freely rejected as if we had no evidence for it at all. That is a perversion of science. It completely ignores the fact that there are set laws of physics that we can use to determine how the Universe operates and an abundance of experiments that tells us how matter and energy function in different circumstances. That gives us a wealth of evidence as to how neutron stars and black holes should behave. If you are denying that, then either:
(1) you think the majority of physicists are too stupid to know about the things you've spoken of, or
(2) you have stubbornly-held misconceptions about the way physics works and don't know what you are talking about.
Which is it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/09/2020 03:42:33
Unless, the age of the Universe is longer than 13.8 BY.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:56:12Not within the current age of the Universe it can't. They would not have had enough time to cool off that much.
NS can be as cold as BH
Based on theory D the age of the Universe is infinite. So that issue by itself could be used as one more evidence why the universe is much older than our current understanding.
ThanksQuotefrom: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:56:12
Sorry this is just hypothetical idea.
No. No it is not: https://phys.org/news/2020-03-neutron-star-kilometers-radius.html#:~:text=%22We%20find%20that%20the%20typical,between%2010.4%20and%2011.9%20kilometers.
The title of the article is: Team obtains the best measurement of neutron star size to date"
However, they don't explain how they really set the measurements.
It is stated: "We find that the typical neutron star, which is about 1.4 times as heavy as our Sun has a radius of about 11 kilometers," says Badri Krishnan,"
So, how they really have measured that kind of physical size, while we all understand that they can't observe the core by any sort of measurement tools.
Why they could measure that kind of object, while they couldn't do the same measurements for a BH with a similar mass?
Do you confirm that they can't really see the core of that NS as they can't see the core of a BH?
So, do you agree that it is all about estimation?
I don't claim that it is incorrect; I just say that in the article they don't show how they made this measurement.
With regards to the NS maximal size: It is stated:
"From this family, the authors selected those members that are most likely to explain different astrophysical observations; they picked models:"
"which agree with known constraints on the maximum neutron star mass from electromagnetic counterpart observations of GW170817."
Would you kindly explain that message:
1. Is it correct that they start by the assumption that NS has a maximal mass?
2. What is so unique in the electromagnetic counterpart observations of GW170817 that convinced them that this is the NS model with the maximal mass?
So, could it be that if they won't limit the mass of the NS they could find other model with higher mass?
In any case, this article is very interesting as it gives excellent explanation about the NS.
It is stated:
"Neutron stars contain the densest matter in the observable universe. In fact, they are so dense and compact, that you can think of the entire star as a single atomic nucleus, scaled up to the size of a city"
So, if that NS perfectly meets my explanation/expectation about the core of the densest object in the Universe.
However, if they claim that this NS has the densest matter in the observable universe, then why can't we believe them?
Why can't we assume that any object with similar mass can't be more dense with regards to the "densest matter in the observable universe" even if we call it BH?
Dear Kryptid,
You had already confirmed the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
"general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths."
So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/09/2020 07:04:13
Unless, the age of the Universe is longer than 13.8 BY.
There's no good evidence for that.
So that issue by itself could be used as one more evidence why the universe is much older than our current understanding.
Except that we know Sagittarius A* isn't a neutron star, so no, it can't be used as evidence.
So, how they really have measured that kind of physical size, while we all understand that they can't observe the core by any sort of measurement tools.
Read the article.
Do you confirm that they can't really see the core of that NS as they can't see the core of a BH?
Apples and oranges.
So, do you agree that it is all about estimation?
No. It's about comparing measurements with the known laws of nuclear physics. Models of neutron star matter aren't picked at random to tickle the fancy of the physicist. If I recall correctly, the range of different models for neutron star matter predict a maximum neutron star mass between 2 and 3 times the mass of the Sun. So they are actually fairly consistent with each other.
I don't claim that it is incorrect; I just say that in the article they don't show how they made this measurement.
They said that they made a model and compared the predictions of that model with the observations made using gravitational radiation and electromagnetic radiation. If they match, then that is evidence that the model is correct:
Quote
The research team used a model based on a first-principles description of how subatomic particles interact at the high densities found inside neutron stars. Remarkably, as the team shows, theoretical calculations at length scales less than a trillionth of a millimeter can be compared with observations of an astrophysical object more than a hundred million light years away.
1. Is it correct that they start by the assumption that NS has a maximal mass?
Yes, because neutron degeneracy pressure is finite. That demands that neutron stars have an upper mass limit because too much mass will necessary overwhelm degeneracy pressure.
2. What is so unique in the electromagnetic counterpart observations of GW170817 that convinced them that this is the NS model with the maximal mass?
Given that the actual research article is hidden behind a paywall, I can't answer that. But I'm not going to assume that the physicists are stupid.
So, could it be that if they won't limit the mass of the NS they could find other model with higher mass?
Only if the predictions of that model matched the data (which becomes less and less likely as you increase the mass limit, given that this particular model apparently matched the observations).
However, if they claim that this NS has the densest matter in the observable universe, then why can't we believe them?
It does have the most dense known matter in the Universe. Black holes, by contrast, aren't made of matter.
So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?
You would need to demonstrate that neutrons are at the limit of being squeezed inside of a neutron star (which you have not).
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/09/2020 08:41:05
Based on theory D the age of the Universe is infinite.Which is one of the more obvious problems with the idea .
It isn't a theory.
Why do you keep pretending?
As BH (Black Hole) and NS (Neutron Star) are producing Gamma Ray, why do you claim that that they are different?My coffee mug produces gamma rays.
Are you claiming that it is a black hole?
Now, lets see if you can be grown-up enough to answer a couple of questions.Or do you realise now, just how stupid you look?
So, it's now th e4th time...In the meantime, for the third time of asking.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:10:06
Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.
Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/09/2020 05:41:13
I have already proved it by quantum mechanics law:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:42:33You would need to demonstrate that neutrons are at the limit of being squeezed inside of a neutron star (which you have not).
So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?
Dear Kryptid,
You had already confirmed the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
"general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths."
So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?
So please do you confirm that the the following quantum mechanics law is correct?
"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"
Therefore, you have to agree that there must be a minimum size for any sort of particle.
Our scientists claim that the core of Neutron Star is made out of "atomic nucleus":
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-neutron-star-kilometers-radius.html#:~:text=%22We%20find%20that%20the%20typical,between%2010.4%20and%2011.9%20kilometers
"Neutron stars contain the densest matter in the observable universe. In fact, they are so dense and compact, that you can think of the entire star as a single atomic nucleus, scaled up to the size of a city"
As atomic nucleus are made of particles, how can you hope for its collapse without breaking the quantum mechanics?
So, the quantum mechanics law is the ultimate evidence that there is no force in the whole Universe that can force particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.
Therefore, as long as we accept the quantum mechanics law, we all must agree that there is no possibility for an object that is made out of real particles to force each one of its particles to inhabit a space smaller than its wavelength.
Hence, any object that is made out of real particles must have a Minimal physical size based on the minimal size of the particles in its core.
Therefore, you have to agree that NS would never ever be converted to BH at a zero size.
Even if you believe that BH are real, than any BH that "eat" real particle wouldn't be able to force that particle to inhabit a space smaller than its wavelength.
It's about comparing measurements with the known laws of nuclear physics. Models of neutron star matter aren't picked at random to tickle the fancy of the physicist.So, if our scientists accept the law of nuclear physics including the QM, how could they claim that BH could swallow a NS:
"They also find that neutron stars merging with black holes are in most cases likely to be swallowed whole, unless the black hole is small and/or rapidly rotating".
Is it real?
Hence, if those unrealistic BH were real and they will swallow a whole NS with its full size of Giant "Single atomic nucleus", do you really believe that QM would allow for this giant atomic nucleus to inhabit a space smaller than the wavelength needed for each of its particles?
How could you claim that those scientists know "laws of nuclear physics"?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2020 06:27:35
"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"You're aware that, as a particle gains energy, its wavelength decreases, don't you? So what do you think the lower limit of a particle's wavelength is?
Therefore, you have to agree that NS would never ever be converted to BH at a zero size.
It technically wouldn't have to collapse to zero size to be a black hole anyway. All it has to do is be so dense that it is inside of its own Schwarzschild radius.
So, if our scientists accept the law of nuclear physics including the QM, how could they claim that BH could swallow a NS:
Finite degeneracy pressure, that's how.
Is it real?
Yes, it is.
Hence, if those unrealistic BH
Congratulations on calling something "unrealistic" that we know exists.
do you really believe that QM would allow for this giant atomic nucleus to inhabit a space smaller than the wavelength needed for each of its particles?
It doesn't have to. The wavelength associated with those particles becomes shorter and shorter as the neutron star collapses because those particles continuously gain energy from the gravitational collapse.
How could you claim that those scientists know "laws of nuclear physics"?
Because they don't tenaciously cling to misunderstandings like you do. That's one reason they are the scientists and you are not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 08:58:59
How could you claim that those scientists know "laws of nuclear physics"?It's called science.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/09/2020 12:47:43
My intention was that BH with zero physical size is unrealistic!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:41:13Congratulations on calling something "unrealistic" that we know exists.
Hence, if those unrealistic BH
There are many objects that we can't see. We can call them NS or BH. But all of them must have some minimal physical size.
Zero size is imagination!
Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?
No, I don't, and it is very clear that also quantum mechanics does aware about it.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:41:13You're aware that, as a particle gains energy, its wavelength decreases, don't you? So what do you think the lower limit of a particle's wavelength is?
"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"
The wavelength associated with those particles becomes shorter and shorter as the neutron star collapses because those particles continuously gain energy from the gravitational collapse.1. Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?
Don't you agree that the gravitational is relative to the total available mass/particles in the core of the NS?
Hence, you have to agree that the NS mass sets the gravitational force which sets the pressure on each particle at that NS core. Therefore, if something should collapse, it is the particle and not the gravitational. So why do you claim the other way?
2. Let's consider a BH with one sun mass.
Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?
Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core? Don't you agree that a particle at its core will face a similar pressure/gravity force as a particle at the core of the Sun?
3. Is there any possibility for a BH to set INFINITE pressure at its core? How a BH with finite mass could set infinite pressure in its core?
4. If the pressure is finite, then the energy which the particle gains must be finite.
If that energy is finite that the wavelength decreases must be finite.
5. Can you please offer the physical law which can bypass the QM law in order to set a BH at zero size?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 12:55:08
No, I don't, and it is very clear that also quantum mechanics does aware about it.So, you seem to be saying you don't know (or don't understand) QM.
Well, that's remarkably honest.
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 12:56:27
Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?Because there's nothing that could stop it, is there?
Post by: Halc on 25/09/2020 14:37:54
1. Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?You're treating 'the gravitational' as a noun here, where it is in fact an adjective. This troll move makes zero sense, like trying to talk about the location of 'the awesome'. Your choice of this wording shows all the maturity of an older sibling doing the 'why are you hitting yourself?' trick with much younger siblings.
Don't you agree that the gravitational is relative to the total available mass/particles in the core of the NS?
... Therefore, if something should collapse, it is the particle and not the gravitational.
Quote
2. Let's consider a BH with one sun mass.Masses do not have a gravity force. If you think otherwise, then how many Newtons does Earth have?
Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?
Masses have a gravitational field (expressible as an acceleration field or as a potential field), and the gravitational field of the sun and your small BH is very different.
Quote
Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?Pressure isn't a function of force. If you think otherwise, then how much pressure is generated by a Newton of force?
A particle at the center of the sun has on average no net force acting on it. It is for such reasons that the core of Earth stays at the center and doesn't move elsewhere.
Quote
4. If the pressure is finite, then the energy which the particle gains must be finite.Similarly, pressure and energy are not the same thing. Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic, as it would entail infinite mass, which no object, BH or otherwise, has.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/09/2020 15:24:34
Pressure isn't a function of force. If you think otherwise, then how much pressure is generated by a Newton of force?So do you confirm that also a particle at the center of the BH has on average no net force acting on it?
A particle at the center of the sun has on average no net force acting on it. It is for such reasons that the core of Earth stays at the center and doesn't move elsewhere.
Similarly, pressure and energy are not the same thing. Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic, as it would entail infinite mass, which no object, BH or otherwise, has.Thanks again
You actually confirm that infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic.
Therefore, without infinite energy how can we accept the idea of zero size at a finite region at the core of the BH?
Do you agree that the following law QM is correct?
"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"
If I understand correctly the message from Kryptid, in order to bypass that law, he is dealing with the wavelengths of the particle. Therefore, he claims that:
The wavelength associated with those particles becomes shorter and shorter as the neutron star collapses because those particles continuously gain energy from the gravitational collapseHowever, as you claim that the energy which the particles gain can't be infinite, then at a finite energy there must be a finite wavelength.
Therefore, at a finite wavelength, the particle must have a minimal size.
Hence, a core of an object with real particle must have a minimal size.
It is correct for an atom as it correct for NS or BH (all with real particale).
Do you agree with that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
Your choice of this wording shows all the maturity of an older sibling doing the 'why are you hitting yourself?' trick with much younger siblings.To be fair, I don't think English is his first language.
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2020 17:45:21
Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?
According to the math, that's exactly what you get as an object collapses towards zero size. Gravity obeys the inverse square law. Cut the distance between an object's components in half, and you quadruple the gravitational force between those components. Divide it by ten, and the force increases one hundred-fold. So as the distance approaches zero, the force becomes greater and greater without limit.
No, I don't, and it is very clear that also quantum mechanics does aware about it.
I don't know what this means.
1. Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?
Because there is no force that can oppose that collapse.
Don't you agree that the gravitational is relative to the total available mass/particles in the core of the NS?
And also the distance.
Therefore, if something should collapse, it is the particle and not the gravitational. So why do you claim the other way?
It is the particles collapsing. They are collapsing because of the gravitational force.
Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?
Depends on the distances involved.
Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?
According to current models, infinite.
Don't you agree that a particle at its core will face a similar pressure/gravity force as a particle at the core of the Sun?
Absolutely not.
3. Is there any possibility for a BH to set INFINITE pressure at its core? How a BH with finite mass could set infinite pressure in its core?
Yes. Go find the gravitational force equation. Put zero in for the distance and see what happens.
As for the issue of wavelength, this is the equation for the Compton wavelength of a subatomic particle:
wavelength = Planck constant/(mass x the speed of light)
A black hole with a mass three times that of the Sun will have a mass of 1.98847 x 1030 kilograms x 3 = 5.96541 x 1030 kilograms. Putting that into the equation, we get:
wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((5.96541 x 1030) x (299,792,458))
wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((1.78838 x 1039
wavelength = 3.70507 x 10-73 meters
So the Compton wavelength associated with the singularity of that black hole is about 3.70507 x 10-73 meters. But there is something very important about that number: it is much, much smaller than the Planck length (which is 1.616255 x 10-35 meters). Heisenberg's uncertainty principle places a lower limit on the distance scales that can be measured, and that distance scale is around the Planck length. Any distance scales smaller than that are indistinguishable, at least experimentally, from no distance at all. So a singularity with a Compton wavelength of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters might as well, for practical purposes, have no size at all.
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/09/2020 07:34:58
As for the issue of wavelength, this is the equation for the Compton wavelength of a subatomic particle:Thanks
wavelength = Planck constant/(mass x the speed of light)
That is the equation for particle due to QM.
Based on this equation we can calculate the size/radius of each particle.
With regards to proton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Mass 1.672×10^−27 kg
wavelength (proton) = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((1.672×10^−27 kg) x (299,792,458)) = 1.32 * 10^-15
Based on the article it is stated that its size should be: 0.84×10^−15 to 0.87×10^−15 m. So, there is no big difference between that no to the calculated wavelength.
This is the size of a proton. We have just found that it surly not zero!!!
So, even that the radius of the smallest particle might be very small, it still has some sort of a size which can't be considered as a zero.
Therefore, that minimal size sets the minimal distance between the particles in the core of a BH or NS.
The distance is limited by the radius of each particle.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43According to the math, that's exactly what you get as an object collapses towards zero size. Gravity obeys the inverse square law. Cut the distance between an object's components in half, and you quadruple the gravitational force between those components. Divide it by ten, and the force increases one hundred-fold. So as the distance approaches zero, the force becomes greater and greater without limit.
Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?
We have already confirmed that each particle must have a minimum radius.
As the distance/size/radius of a particle is not zero, than the gravity force can't be infinite.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43Depends on the distances involved.
Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?
As the gravity force isn't infinite, then the pressure can't be infinite.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43According to current models, infinite.
Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?
It seems that you have missed the explanation by Halc:
Pressure isn't a function of force. If you think otherwise, then how much pressure is generated by a Newton of force?
A particle at the center of the sun has on average no net force acting on it. It is for such reasons that the core of Earth stays at the center and doesn't move elsewhere.
Similarly, pressure and energy are not the same thing. Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic, as it would entail infinite mass, which no object, BH or otherwise, has.Therefore, I hope that by this time you do understand that Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic while the distance isn't zero!!!
A black hole with a mass three times that of the Sun will have a mass of 1.98847 x 1030 kilograms x 3 = 5.96541 x 1030 kilograms. Putting that into the equation, we get:This is your biggest mistake!
wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((5.96541 x 1030) x (299,792,458))
wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((1.78838 x 1039
wavelength = 3.70507 x 10-73 meters
Based on this calculation the size of the whole BH (3.70507 x 10^-73 meters) is smaller than the size of a single proton (1.32 * 10^-15 m) by almost 10^58 times.
How can we beleive that this represents real science?
In this calculation you assume that the BH acts as a single particle.
This is totally incorrect as QM specifically aim to use this formula for a single particle. How could you make so sever mistake and use that particle formula for a BH as it is a single particle?
The size of the BH is the direct outcome from the total size of all its particles.
In NS for example, there are limited no of particles. It might be in the range of 10^10...000, but it is still finite no.
Each one of those particles has a minimal radius based on its wavelength.
Therefore, the radius of the NS is the outcome of the combined size/radius of all its particales under the pressure of its mass/gravity (which is a finite value).
That NS would never ever collapse under any sort of particles no as the pressure on each particle is finite due to finite radius of each particale as confirmed.
Therefore, the NS can become a massive NS or a Supper Massive NS without any difficulty.
So, the idea that NS should collapse at 3 Sun mass is a pure imagination.
As I have proved, (and as Halc confirmed) there is no way for infinite pressure. Therefore, there is no real singularity in the core of NS or any sort of object, even if we call it BH.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 15/09/2020 05:49:22Yes. If all three quarks are crushed into a singularity, then you no longer have a proton but a black hole instead. That singularity will have the charge and mass of the proton so that conservation laws are not violated.
So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
Hence, any BH that we see must have a real minimal physical size (assuming that it carries real particles).:
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2020 12:24:55
Therefore, that minimal size sets the minimal distance between the particles in the core of a BH or NS.No it does not.
That's a complete non sequitur.
How can we beleive that this represents real science?Because it's the answer you gave- though you didn't do the arithmetic.
Do you remember saying it?
There is no way for particles to "inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths".
Once we understand that simple explanation by quantum mechanics, we can easily calculate the real size of mass in any BH or SMBH.
So, you are now arguing against yourself.
Perhaps you should stop and answer this
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Kryptid on 26/09/2020 17:30:54
We have just found that it surly not zero!!!
The proton isn't a fundamental particle, so of course its size isn't zero.
Therefore, that minimal size sets the minimal distance between the particles in the core of a BH or NS.
Nope.
The distance is limited by the radius of each particle.
That radius is not fixed. A particle's wavelength is dependent upon its energy.
Therefore, I hope that by this time you do understand that Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic while the distance isn't zero!!!
I never said anything about infinite energy.
How can we beleive that this represents real science?
Black holes don't contain protons, so that's not an issue.
In this calculation you assume that the BH acts as a single particle.
This is totally incorrect as QM specifically aim to use this formula for a single particle. How could you make so sever mistake and use that particle formula for a BH as it is a single particle?
A singularity is a single particle.
The size of the BH is the direct outcome from the total size of all its particles.
There's no evidence for that.
That NS would never ever collapse under any sort of particles no as the pressure on each particle is finite due to finite radius of each particale as confirmed.
And yet that pressure is still greater than neutron degeneracy pressure can withstand when the neutron star is too massive.
Therefore, the NS can become a massive NS or a Supper Massive NS without any difficulty.
So, the idea that NS should collapse at 3 Sun mass is a pure imagination.
Why are you calling physicists stupid?
As I have proved
You have not.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/09/2020 23:37:06
The covalent radius of carbon under standard conditions is 7 x 10-11 meters, and 6 x 10-11 for oxygen. The average atomic weight of carbon is 12.011 daltons (1.99447 x 10-26 kilograms, and the average atomic weight of oxygen is 15.999 daltons (2.56696 x 10-26 kilograms).
The volume of a carbon atom would then be:
Volume = (4/3) x (3.14151) x (7 x 10-11 meters)3
Volume = (4/3) x (3.14151) x (3.34 x 10-31)
Volume = (4.18879) x (3.34 x 10-31)
Volume = 1.436755 x 10-30 cubic meters
For oxygen:
Volume = (4/3) x (3.14151) x (6 x 10-11 meters)3
Volume = (4/3) x (3.14151) x (2.16 x 10-31)
Volume = (4.18879) x (2.16 x 10-31)
Volume = 9.047786 x 10-31 cubic meters
That leads to a density of a carbon atom as:
Density = (1.99447 x 10-26 kilograms)/(1.43755 x 10-30 cubic meters)
Density = 1.3874 x 105 kilograms/cubic meter
For comparison, diamond (which is pure carbon) has a density of about 3.52 x 103. Diamond is less dense than an individual carbon atom because diamond is not completely filled with carbon atoms: it still has significant pockets of empty space in its structure.
For an oxygen atom:
Density = (2.56696 x 10-26 kilograms)/(9.047786 x 10-31 cubic meters)
Density = 2.8371 x 105 kilograms/cubic meter
Now let’s find out what the average density of a white dwarf star is. I will use a carbon-oxygen white dwarf known as Sirius B. Sirius B is very close to us (only 8.6 light-years) and we are able to photograph it directly. Its properties (such as mass and radius) are well-known. Its radius is 5,850 kilometers (5.85 x 106 meters) and its mass is 1.02 solar masses (2.0282 x 1030 kilograms). That would make the volume of the star:
Volume = (4/3) x (3.14151) x (5.85 x 106 meters)3
Volume = (4.18879) x (5.85 x 106 meters)3
Volume = (4.18879) x (2.002 x 1020)
Volume = 8.386 x 1020 cubic meters
That leads to an average density of:
Density = (2.0282 x 1030 kilograms)/(8.386 x 1020 cubic meters)
Density = 2.41855 x 109 kilograms/cubic meter
That makes Sirius B about 17,400 times more dense than a carbon atom and about 8,500 times more dense than an oxygen atom, despite being composed primarily of carbon and oxygen. So even if this white dwarf star was completely crammed full of conventional oxygen and carbon atoms such that there was no empty space left between the atoms, then that alone could still not explain the extreme density of a white dwarf star. The obvious conclusion is that those atoms (and thus the electrons in them) are crushed to a much smaller size than normal by the immense pressure. So it's confirmed by observational evidence that gravity can squeeze particles into a much tighter volume than normal.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/09/2020 10:40:03
That leads to an average density of:Wow
Density = (2.0282 x 1030 kilograms)/(8.386 x 1020 cubic meters)
Density = 2.41855 x 109 kilograms/cubic meter
That makes Sirius B about 17,400 times more dense than a carbon atom and about 8,500 times more dense than an oxygen atom, despite being composed primarily of carbon and oxygen.
That calculation shows that even at Ultra high pressure, while the carbon atom is about 8,500 times more dense than oxygen Atom it is still stay as carbon Atom.
It doesn't collapse as our scientists wish to believe.
This by itself proves my understanding that any particle keeps its properties and will never ever collapse even under ultra extreme pressure.
Therefore, in the same token, a proton will stay a proton under any sort of extreme pressure.
Any particle in a core of NS would probably be squeezed and inhabit less space than expected, but it won't be collapsed and it will continue to keep its properties.
Our scientists estimate that the density of NS is as follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
Neutron stars have overall densities of 3.7×1017 to 5.9×1017 kg/m3 (2.6×1014 to 4.1×1014 times the density of the Sun),[c] which is comparable to the approximate density of an atomic nucleus of 3×1017 kg/m3."
So, it is almost in the rage of atomic nucleus.
As Atom didn't collapse at ultra high pressure, its atomic nucleus won't collapse at any finite extreme pressure (assuming that it is not infinite).
"A neutron star is so dense that one teaspoon (5 milliliters) of its material would have a mass over 5.5×1012 kg, about 900 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza."
They also estimate that at higher mass it might have lower radius:
"A 1.5 M☉ neutron star could have a radius of 10.7, 11.1, 12.1 or 15.1 kilometers.
A 2 M☉ neutron star would not be more compact than 10,970 meters radius."
This proves that under any sort of NS mass, any particle would keep some minimal size/radius. By doing so, there would never ever face an infinite pressure.
I hope that you agree that without a finite pressure we can't force the particles to collapse.
Hence, it is like a chicken and the egg story.
Without a chicken there is no egg. Without an egg there is no chicken.
As the carbon atom can sustain under ultra high pressure, it should be easy for Atomic nucleus to sustain under any sort of finite pressure. By doing so, they keep some minimal size. Therefore, the idea that the distance is zero is unrealistic. Hence, there is no possibility for infinite pressure. Without infinite pressure they would never ever collapse and keep their properties.
Conclusion:
I fully agree with you that any kind of Atom, Atomic nucleus or particle might inhabit less space under Ultra high pressure.
However, none of those objects would never ever collapse under any sort of a finite pressure.
Therefore, the hope that particles should Collapse due to infinite pressure (while there is no infinite pressure) is unrealistic.
If you still think differently, then please show the math at which pressure the Atom or atomic nucleus should collapse.
Let me ask you the following questions:
1. What are the differences between NS to BH at simmilar mass that we can OBSERVE?
Please - not unproved theory. ONLY real observation.
2. Singularity - You keep using the idea of singularity for a BH.
A singularity is a single particle.Is it real?
wavelength = 3.70507 x 10-73 metersCan we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?
3. Ratio - In the following article it is stated that there are 1.1883315 × 10^57 atoms is the sun.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-atoms-fit-in-the-sun
"That means there are 1.973317 X 10^33 moles of hydrogen in the sun or ~1.1883315 × 10^57 atoms."
The ratio between the size of a BH to the size of proton is:
Proton size = 1.32 * 10^-15 / BH size = 3.70507 x 10^-73 = 4.7 * 10^57
Hence the size of a single proton is bigger than a BH as the Sun is bigger than a single atom.
So, the size of one single proton is like a Sun for a BH, while the BH mass is like a sun to a proton.
How anyone with basic common sense can accept that idea?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 11:39:22
It doesn't collapse as our scientists wish to believe.Nonsense.
We say that Sirius B is a carbon/ oxygen star because the carbon and oxygen nuclei, though squashed, are still intact.
So the question is, are you ignorant or dishonest?
This by itself proves my understanding that any particle keeps its properties and will never ever collapse even under ultra extreme pressure.No, it's only the pressure in a white dwarf, it's not extreme.
The density of a white dwarf is about 10^9 Kg/m3
The density of an atomic nucleus is about 10^17 Kg/m3
So you need to compress an atom a million times smaller than the white dwarf does before the nuclei are "feeling the pressure"
When you do that, you get a neutron star.
And, if you keep on increasing the compression, eventually, you get something different- a black hole.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/09/2020 17:30:17
I have just watched in a very interesting program about Singularity.
This program is called "How the Universe really works" 7 chapter 6. (Actually the title of the program was about the Big Bang)
The scientists have stated that the singularity is a theoretical outcome from the formulas of Einstein general relativity. However, those formulas of general relativity are aimed for large scale as moons stars and galaxies.
When it comes to very small scale as particles and Atoms, QM must be used.
They also add that QM fully rejects the idea of singularity. Based on QM there is no possibility to get infinite pressure at any single point.
Therefore, as general relativity isn't applicable for very small scale as particles, while QM rejects the idea of singularity, then it should be very clear that a BH can't be considered as a singularity point.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/09/2020 18:00:54
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on EarthActually, that program also gives good answer for you.
It was stated that they have found a big aria in our universe that is very cold.
That aria contradicts the concept of the CMBR as was estimated by the BBT.
So, their answer was that it is due to other nearby Universe. Hence, they estimate that it is an indication for the theory of the Multiverse.
I claim that this discovery should be used as one more evidence why the BBT is just incorrect.
Based on theory D the Universe is Infinite in its age and in its size.
Only this theory can clearly explain any observation that we see in our universe including the BH.
In the following article they give excellent explanation about white dwarf as Sirius B which had been offered by Kryptid:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/W/white+dwarf
"Sirius B was the first white dwarf discovered in 1862."
However, they also claim:
"Eventually, after hundreds of billions of years, the white dwarf will cool to temperatures at which it is no longer visible and it will become a black dwarf. With such long timescales for cooling (due mostly to the small surface area through which the star radiates), and with the age of the Universe currently estimated at 13.7 billion years, even the oldest white dwarfs still radiate at temperatures of a few thousand Kelvin, and black dwarfs remain hypothetical entities."
So, a white dwarf could become a black dwarf but it needs much more time than 13.7BY.
However, based on theory D, the age of the Universe is infinite.
So, a white dwarf could be transformed to black dwarf without that time limitation.
Therefore, if there are while dwarf, there must be Black dwarf.
Hence, many of the black objects that we see (or only observe the outcome of their existence due to the impact of their high gravity field on nearby objects) aren't BH but actually Black dwarf.
However, as our scientists are locked at that limited time scale of 13.7BY, they can't even imagine that what they see is a Black Dwarf, therefore they consider that it is a BH (while in reality it is a Black Dwarf).
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
They also add that QM fully rejects the idea of singularity.You say that as if it is news to me.
were you not paying attention when I explained it weeks ago?
Maybe they are as big as the planck length, but they certainly are not bigger.
It was stated that they have found a big aria in our universe that is very cold.An aria is a song.
What are you talking about?
Actually, never mind what you are talking about- it seems like the tv show was wrong anyway.
Just answer my question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:53
However, based on theory DIt's not a theory.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/09/2020 19:48:56
the carbon atom is about 8,500 times more dense than oxygen Atom
Where in the world did you get that? What I posted doesn't say that at all.
It doesn't collapse as our scientists wish to believe.
No scientist claims that matter "collapses" in a white dwarf in the first place. It is just highly compressed.
This by itself proves my understanding that any particle keeps its properties and will never ever collapse even under ultra extreme pressure.
That's not what this shows at all. White dwarf stars have an upper mass limit (1.4 solar masses). Beyond that, they collapse into neutron stars because electron degeneracy pressure is insufficient to support normal matter against that collapse.
Therefore, in the same token, a proton will stay a proton under any sort of extreme pressure.
Non-sequitur. Protons have a finite degeneracy pressure.
As Atom didn't collapse at ultra high pressure, its atomic nucleus won't collapse at any finite extreme pressure (assuming that it is not infinite).
Again, that's a non-sequitur because degeneracy pressure is limited.
I hope that you agree that without a finite pressure we can't force the particles to collapse.
No, because that ignores finite degeneracy pressure.
If you still think differently, then please show the math at which pressure the Atom or atomic nucleus should collapse.
Physicists have calculated that atoms collapse into neutrons when a white dwarf is 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. I don't know what the math is, but it wouldn't make any sense for that number (also called the Chandrasekhar limit) to be so widely accepted among astrophysicists if the math behind it wasn't solid. Again, are you assuming that physicists are stupid? No white dwarf above that mass limit has ever been observed, which adds support to the idea that they got the math right. A similar limit exists for neutron stars at a little more than 2 times the Sun's mass.
1. What are the differences between NS to BH at simmilar mass that we can OBSERVE?
Please - not unproved theory. ONLY real observation.
We don't know of any neutron stars and black holes of the same mass. The heaviest neutron star that we've detected is 2.14 times the mass of the Sun, whereas the lightest black hole we've seen so far has a mass of 3.8 times the mass of the Sun.
Is it real?
That's what the math indicates.
Can we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?
Nothing inside of a black hole can be observed at all.
How anyone with basic common sense can accept that idea?
"Common sense" is very often wrong, so that's a poor argument.
Hence, many of the black objects that we see (or only observe the outcome of their existence due to the impact of their high gravity field on nearby objects) aren't BH but actually Black dwarf.
That hasn't happened because black dwarfs would have an upper mass limit of 1.4 solar masses. That's far too light for them to be stellar black holes, so we would know the difference.
Some day, I'm going to learn to stop responding to this thread. So here goes yet another attempt of mine to do exactly that. Hopefully, this will be my last post in here.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/09/2020 09:51:29
Well, QM contradicts the idea of Singularity.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:40:03Nothing inside of a black hole can be observed at all.
Can we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?
We all know that and even Einstein Knew it:
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-black-hole-singularity.html
"For example, general relativity predicts that there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends. We refer to these places as 'singularities.' But even Einstein agreed that this limitation of general relativity results from the fact that it ignores quantum mechanics."
So, based on QM there is no possibility for Singularity.
It is also stated:
"This leads to the celebrated 'information paradox' that theoretical physicists have been grappling with for over 40 years. However, the quantum corrections of loop quantum gravity allow for a repulsive force that can overwhelm even the strongest pull of classical gravity and therefore physics can continue to exist. This opens an avenue to show in detail that there is no loss of information at the center of a blackhole, which the researchers are now pursuing."
The idea is that "the quantum corrections of loop quantum gravity allow for a repulsive force that can overwhelm even the strongest pull of classical gravity and therefore physics can continue to exist."
Hence, that overwhelm repulsive due to QM or Loop Quantum Gravity prevents a singularity in the core of a BH.
The last message is the most important one: "therefore physics can continue to exist"
So, it is clear that in singularity physics can't exist.
Conclusion:
Based on all the articles including the TV program of "How the universe really works" it is very clear that QM doesn't permit a singularity in a BH.
As there is no singularity, there must be some minimal volume or Bulge for all the matter in that BH.
If I recall it correctly, in the Kerr BH there is no singularity at the center but some sort of a Bulge.
That Bulge is the key element that gives the BH the ability to generate Magnetic filed around it.
The production of that magnetic field is a direct outcome of its activity.
If it is rotatable BH as Kerr BH and/Hot enough it should have the ability to generate magnetic filed.
I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.
At the moment that we take out from the table the possibility that a BH is a pure singularity at zero point, we should agree that a BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field.
Therefore, we can continue our discussion from that point.
BHs have no singularity point and therefore, they have the ability to generate Magnetic filed.
That is correct for a Massive BH, SMBH as the one in the core of our galaxy and even for quasar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
A quasar (/ˈkweɪzɑːr/) (also known as a quasi-stellar object abbreviated QSO) is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN), in which a supermassive black hole with mass ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun is surrounded by a gaseous accretion disk
That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.
All the matter that we see around it and all the matter that it ejects had been created by this object.
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how quasar really works.
They think that:
As gas in the disk falls towards the black hole, energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which can be observed across the electromagnetic spectrum.
This is clearly incorrect.
A quasar has no stars around it, so what is the source for all of that gas in the accretion disc?
That gas is a direct outcome from the particle creation which takes place ONLY by transformation of the quasar' magnetic field.
Hence, all the gas/particles in that disc come from the new created partials by the quasar Magnetic field.
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar#/media/File:PKS_1127-145_X-rays.jpg
"An enormous X-ray jet extends at least a million light-years from the quasar."
In this image we clearly see the jet stream that is so typical to any SMBH that has strong enough magnetic filed.
As expected, you might claim that it is due to the disc magnetic field. But sorry that is clearly incorrect. Only a supper ultra high magnetic field (that could only be generated by the SMBH/quasar itself) can set such jet stream that extends at least a million light-years from the quasar.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2020 11:26:07
Based on all the articles including the TV program of "How the universe really works"You really can't expect to cite a TV show as "evidence" and be taken seriously.
I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.It still can't (or, at best, can't for long)
Therefore, we can continue our discussion from that point.No
It would be silly to continue from something that's wrong.
That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.It is in the process of chewing them.
that's what the accretion disk is made of.
That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.For the BH at the centre of the milky way, the most obvious counter-example is the Sun.
There are also about 100,000,000,000 others.
Also, you keep forgetting to answer this:
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/09/2020 03:53:25
As you still insist that a SMBH or Quasar can't generate Magnetic filed, please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:51:29It still can't (or, at best, can't for long)
I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.
Please look at the following image:This time it is not just 27,000LY as we have found with our SMBH. it is in the range of Million LY.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar#/media/File:PKS_1127-145_X-rays.jpg
"An enormous X-ray jet extends at least a million light-years from the quasar."
So, what kind of force could set that jet that extends at least million of LY from the quasar?
You really can't expect to cite a TV show as "evidence" and be taken seriously.As the TV is not good enough for you, why it is stated that Einstein had agreed that the singularity limitation of general relativity results from the fact that it ignores quantum mechanics?
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-black-hole-singularity.html
"For example, general relativity predicts that there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends. We refer to these places as 'singularities.' But even Einstein agreed that this limitation of general relativity results from the fact that it ignores quantum mechanics."
Don't you agree that QM contradicts the idea of singularity?
Why it is stated that:
"the quantum corrections of loop quantum gravity allow for a repulsive force that can overwhelm even the strongest pull of classical gravity and therefore physics can continue to exist."Don't you agree that the Physics beaks down at the singularity due to QM?
How many quasars do we see in the whole Universe?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:51:29It is in the process of chewing them.
That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.
that's what the accretion disk is made of.
How could it be that we couldn't observe even one star around them while they all are fully loaded with gas/matter in their accretion disc and while their jet streams are boosted away to ultra distance at ultra velocity?
So, do you claim that all of them have just finished chewing the entire stars that were there?
Do you mean that just now all the quasars in the Universe knew that we are going to observe them and therefore all of them have decided as one to chew all the stars around them so we won't be able to see even one star there while all of them are still fully loaded with stars' gas?
Do you agree that you don't let the Observations/evidences to confuse you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:Why should I bother?
I have explained it a few times but you don't understand it or don't listen.The accretion disk could generate a magnetic field.
Speaking of you not listening, it seems you have still not noticed me asking this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
How could it be that we couldn't observe even one star around them while they all are fully loaded with gas/matter in their accretion disc and while their jet streams are boosted away to ultra distance at ultra velocity?We did.
so, what did you think you were talking about?
Do you agree that you don't let the Observations/evidences to confuse you?Get a mirror.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/09/2020 15:42:21
We did.You didn't!
so, what did you think you were talking about?
In this article they do not discuss about quasar but about SMBH.
Therefore, you didn't offer an observation for star around quasar as was requested.
However, even with regards to a SMBH, in the article itself they do not claim that they really saw any star or falling star.
All they claim is about a light close to the black hole:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-tess-mission-spots-its-1st-star-shredding-black-hole
"The early TESS data allow us to see light very close to the black hole"
The light is quite unique as it has more UV emission and so few X-rays:
"More typical for these kinds of events was the low level of X-ray emission seen by both Swift and XMM-Newton. Scientists don’t fully understand why tidal disruptions produce so much UV emission and so few X-rays."
So, they don't fully understand that kind of light.
They even confirm that they have missed the beginning of that activity.
"If it had occurred outside this zone, TESS might have missed the beginning of the outburst."
So they don't really understand this kind of light/tidal disruption and they didn't see any star as they might have missed the beginning of the outburst.
Why they also call this light as outburst? Does it mean that they saw a burst of energy/light that flows outwards from the BH?
They even have some other theories for this observation:
“People have suggested multiple theories — perhaps the light bounces through the newly created debris and loses energy, or maybe the disk forms further from the black hole than we originally thought and the light isn’t so affected by the object’s extreme gravity,”
After all of this I have a message to NASA:
Dear NASA Scientists.
You clearly didn't see any Star or falling star. You only saw a light which you have called it "outburst".
So actually you have found a light or UV emission that outburst (from the BH?)
If so, how could you claim in the title of this article that "NASA’s TESS Mission Spots Its 1st Star-shredding Black Hole?"
Why don't you offer in the title what do you really see?
For example, why couldn't you say the real observation as follow:
NASA’s TESS Mission Spots Its 1st "outburst" of light that produce so much UV emission and so few X-rays near/from Black Hole?
As you didn't see any falling star, don't you think that this one is more realistic based on your observation?
Hence, as your title is not connected to the real observation, you have to agree that this title is clearly incorrect and mislead.
So, why do you lie to all of us?
I have explained it a few times but you don't understand it or don't listen.The accretion disk could generate a magnetic field.So do you believe that the magnetic field of the accertion disc could really boost that jet stream which is more than Million LY away from the quasar?
You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.
So, did we try to estimate the requested magnetic field that is needed from the accretion disc for that job?
How accretion disc with estimated mass of just few suns mass can set so ultra high magnetic field?
In any case, we focus on BH magnetic field/singularity for the last few weeks.
Please let's finish this issue before jumping to any other idea/question.
So would you kindly answer the other questions that I have asked with regards to QM?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.Yes, which means that near the thing the field is quite strong.
One the particles are launched they travel ballistically. They don't need to be pushed any more.
In this article they do not discuss about quasar but about SMBH.
Here's what Wiki would tell you, if you thought to look
"A quasar (/ˈkweɪzɑːr/) (also known as a quasi-stellar object abbreviated QSO) is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN), in which a supermassive black hole with mass ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun is surrounded by a gaseous accretion disk. As gas in the disk falls towards the black hole, energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which can be observed across the electromagnetic spectrum."
So, a SMBH caught in the act of getting an accretion disk IS a quasar.
What makes you think it isn't?
Please let's finish this issue before jumping to any other idea/question.OK, let's finish things you already started.
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:12:15
They even confirm that they have missed the beginning of that activity.What you said is the exact opposite of what they said.
"If it had occurred outside this zone, TESS might have missed the beginning of the outburst."
Learn to read.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/09/2020 19:43:54
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:21Yes, which means that near the thing the field is quite strong.
You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.
One the particles are launched they travel ballistically. They don't need to be pushed any more.
No, there is no way for the jet to get to more than one million LY only by ballistic force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
"As of 2017, the most distant known quasar is ULAS J1342+0928 at redshift z = 7.54; light observed from this quasar was emitted when the universe was only 690 million years old. The supermassive black hole in this quasar, estimated at 800 million solar masses, is the most distant black hole identified to date.[7][8][9] Recently, another quasar was detected from a time only 700 million years after the Big Bang, and with an estimated mass of 1.5 billion times the mass of our Sun".
So, we see those quasars when the Universe age was about 700 MY to 800MY after the Big bang.
Just to remind you that the particles/atoms had been formed at Universe age of about 380MY.
Therefore, it is expected that we see those quasar when the Universe was very compact and dense.
I would like to remind you that by this time, our galaxy had not been formed yet.
Therefore, as the Universe was so compact and dense how could you claim that "One the particles are launched they travel ballistically" to a distance of more than million LY.
How could it be that this jet stream which had been ejected from the quasar could travels through dense matter of the early Universe for more than one million LY and keeps its structure, velocity and direction without any gravitational interruption from nearby matter?
Actually, Today, while the Universe is much less dense, the jet stream from the Milky way' SMBH could get to maximal distance of 27,000LY. So, It is absolutely not realistic to assume that the distance is due to ballistic travel.
It could get to that distance while it is so focused ONLY if the magnetic energy takes it there.
There is one more key issue.
The total estimated mass in the jet stream from the Milky way is about 10,000 Sun mass while it gets only to 27,000Ly,
So, in each Ly there is by average 10/27 = 0.37 Sun mass.
If we use the same density in the quasar jet stream, than the total mass in one million Ly should be
370,000 sun mass.
So, let's assume that this jet stream is due to 370,000 stars that had been accreted into the accretion disc.
However, each star might have different orbital plane. So, each star should set a different accretion disc plane.
Therefore, if the magnetic field is due to the accretion disc' magnetic field, then for each falling star we should get different direction of jet stream.
However, this is not the case.
In all the jet stream in the Universe we clearly see that they move in one smooth and fixed direction.
That is possible ONLY if the leading magnetic field is coming from the main object itself and not from its accretion disc!
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2020 20:45:26
No, there is no way for the jet to get to more than one million LY only by ballistic forceShow your working.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/10/2020 05:27:40
Well, there is no need for thatNo, there is no way for the jet to get to more than one million LY only by ballistic forceShow your working.
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.
The total estimated mass in the jet stream from the Milky way is about 10,000 Sun mass while it gets only to 27,000Ly,Actually, we are located only 27,000 LY from the SMBH and it was quite difficult for us to observe this jet.
So, in each Ly there is by average 10/27 = 0.37 Sun mass.
If we use the same density in the quasar jet stream, than the total mass in one million Ly should be
370,000 sun mass.
So, let's assume that this jet stream is due to 370,000 stars that had been accreted into the accretion disc.
However, each star might have different orbital plane. So, each star should set a different accretion disc plane.
Therefore, if the magnetic field is due to the accretion disc' magnetic field, then for each falling star we should get different direction of jet stream.
However, this is not the case.
In all the jet stream in the Universe we clearly see that they move in one smooth and fixed direction.
Some of the quasars are located at a distance of 27 BYL away (If you wish - 13 BLY Based on BBT), and we clearly see their jet stream from our location.
That proves that the density of the quasar' jet stream is MUCH higher.
Hence, in that quasar jet stream (of at least one Million LY) there must be Millions over Millions Sun Mass.
If stars fall in, It is not expected that they would always keep the accretion disc full with matter at any given moment. At some point of time there could be a sever gap between the falling stars and therefore the accretion disc might be totally disappear. So, it is expected to see gaps in that Jet stream.
As I have already explained, each falling star should set its own accretion disc plane which is relative to its orbital plane. Therefore, for each falling star there must be a different accretion disc plane which means - different magnetic pole direction due to the change in the disc plane. So, the chance that millions over millions falling stars with different accretion disc plane at different time could set so smooth and direct jet stream is Absolutely Zero!!!
There're is also one more key point:
There are no stars around those Quasars. So, the chance that just now all the quasars (at any distance, at any age) in the entire Universe have just finished to eat all the stars around them (Just at this moment of time) while they all are fully loaded with plasma/hot gas in their accretion disc is also absolutely Zero.
That proves that the Quasar produces all the matter around it without any need to eat any star from outside and each quasar generates its magnetic field without any need for help from any star falling' accretion disc.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2020 08:43:45
Show your working.
Well, there is no need for thatThere is if you want to be taken seriously on a science page.
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.No, you didn't
You just pointed out that you don't understand that the accretion disk would form around the "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in.
It also overlooks the obvious fact that the stars that fell in were previously part of the milky way.
Those stars are in orbit round the galaxy. So they are alreadylined up pretty nearly into one plane of rotation.
There are no stars around those Quasars.Yes there are. You can sometimes see them
Squashed and stretched into an accretion disk.
So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?
It only takes a one line answer.
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/10/2020 12:37:45
Sorry, you have a severe mistake.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:27:40No, you didn't
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.
You just pointed out that you don't understand that the accretion disk would form around the "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in.
It also overlooks the obvious fact that the stars that fell in were previously part of the milky way.
Those stars are in orbit round the galaxy. So they are alreadylined up pretty nearly into one plane of rotatio
The Plane of the Milky Way spiral arm disc starts only 3KPC from the SMBH.
As you come closer to the SMBH (from almost zero to 1KPC) there is a bulge.
In this bulge each star orbits at different orbital plane.
Please look at the following image of the S stars:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/left-Orbits-of-individual-stars-near-the-Galactic-center-right-Orbit-of-star-S2_fig1_236456058
Do you see any sort of possibility for "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in?
So do you confirm that there is no average axis of rotation as Any star should form a unique accretion disc once it falls in (if it falls it)?.
Therefore, you have to agree that your theory of falling star with "average accretion disc" should be set immediately in the garbage of the science history.
However, as you claim again and again: No No No.
Can we at least agree on something?
Let's look on Pulsar/magnetar:
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/neutron_stars1.html
"This diagram of a pulsar shows the neutron star with a strong magnetic field (field lines shown in blue) and a beam of light along the magnetic axis. As the neutron star spins, the magnetic field spins with it, sweeping that beam through space."
So, can we agree that the magnetic field of a Pulsar is created by the main mass of this object (Neutron star) and not due to the accretion disc?
However, when it comes to BH, you believe that as it must be at a singularity point (or zero space) there is no way for it to rotate and set any sort of magnetic field. Therefore, you are absolutely sure that a BH has no possibility to set any magnetic field. You wish to believe that if we monitor magnetic field, it must be due to the its accretion disc and not due to its main rotatable mass.
Hence, do you agree that based on your understanding BH can't generate Magnetic field ONLY because you assume that they must have zero space/singularity?
So, based on this understanding, "singularity" is the only gate that prevents you to believe that BH can't generate magnetic filed.
However, with regards to KERR BH.
Do you confirm that its magnetic field is due to the rotation of the BH main mass and not due to its accretion disc?
So, how could it be that a Kerr BH couldn't considered as a BH with singularity, while all the other BHs must considered as singularity?
As Kerr BH can't be considered as "singularity" or zero point mass, then do you agree that it must have some minimal space for its mass like Neutron star?
If so, why do we insist to call them "BH" instead of Kerr Neutron star/Pulsar or magnetar?
If one day our scientists will claim that any BH (even if we call it SMBH) has some minimal size for its mass, would you agree that by rotating its core, a BH can generate magnetic field?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2020 13:02:32
So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2020 13:03:48
So, how could it be that a Kerr BH couldn't considered as a BH with singularity, while all the other BHs must considered as singularity?In one case, the singularity is ring shaped.
Did you not understand that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2020 13:05:37
Do you confirm that its magnetic field is due to the rotation of the BH main mass and not due to its accretion disc?It won't have a magnetic field unless it is charged, and it won't stay charged for long.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/10/2020 03:09:58
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:37:45It won't have a magnetic field unless it is charged,, and it won't stay charged for long.
Do you confirm that its magnetic field is due to the rotation of the BH main mass and not due to its accretion disc?
Thanks
Why is it so difficult for you to give a positive answer as:
Yes, it will have a magnetic field as long as it is charged, and it won't stay charged for long.
In any case, at least we agree on something.
It won't have a magnetic field unless it is charged.So, you confirm that rotatable object as BH or Neutron star can generate Magnetic field.
It is quite clear that without strong internal current, there will be no magnetic filed.
Therefore, I fully agree with you that as long as the object rotates it charges itself and generates high internal current which is the based for its magnetic filed.
and it won't stay charged for long.The magnetic field will stay as long as it rotates and charges itself.
Well, there is no singularity in our Universe.So, how could it be that a Kerr BH couldn't considered as a BH with singularity, while all the other BHs must considered as singularity?In one case, the singularity is ring shaped.
Did you not understand that?
Did you not understand that?
As you clearly didn't, let me try to convince you with the following article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328944131_Are_Black_Holes_Actually_Quark_Stars
"A contradiction exists between the gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole predicted by general relativity and the Pauli exclusion principle. General relativity theory asserts that collapsing stars over a certain size mass have no stable orbits and will become a gravitational singularity forming a "black hole," having finite mass within a point sized space inside an event horizon. On the other hand, the Pauli-exclusion principle predicts that for large collapsing stars, a quark-gluon plasma will be created to form a quark star at the central core inside an event horizon. Accordingly, the exclusion principle will preclude the collapse of a star into a gravitational singu-larity at the center of a black hole. A number of arguments in support of the quark star as black hole will be presented in this paper. It has been shown that the gravitational energy of a collapsed star (>3M), near the core of a quark star, exceeds the energy to create a quark-gluon plasma and the deconfinement energy of quarks from the neutron. It has also been shown that, instead of a black hole, a degenerate nonstrange quark star with a maximum density of 1.1 Â 10 25 kg/m 3 could exist at the center of an event horizon within the Schwarzschild radius. The quark star core would be an ultrarelativistic degenerate Fermi gas that is stable for masses from 3M to 20.69 Â 10 6 M. Calculations have also shown for stellar and rotating black holes that the quark star radius exists at the center and well within the radius of the Schwarzschild event horizon. However, the exclusion principle would preclude the formation of a gravitational singularity at the center. The problem for empirical science is that the quark star with an event horizon will have no emission of radiation and appear to observers to be similar to a black hole. Notwithstanding, the merger of two black holes for GW150914, producing gravitational waves, offers empirical evidence in the remnant event horizon for the existence of quark stars. "
So, our scientists confirm that the Idea of singularity is clearly incorrect.
They claim that as Neutron star would collapse at mass over than 3 Sun mass, it should form a Quark star.
It is the first time that I read this name.
Hence, a BH with Quark core could still be considered as a BH while it has no singularity.
Therefore, a Kerr BH has no singularity in ring shaped.
It must have a real size core as Quark star/core.
It's the time for you to abandon the idea of singularity as there is no singularity in our UNIVERSE.
It was clearly stated in any article which deals with real science that - There is no room for singularity due to Quantum Mechanics.
Any scientist must know it and even Einstein Knew it.
So, we all have to agree that the idea of singularity due to general relativity is absolutely wrong as this theory can't be used for very small scale. For this scale we have to use QM which fully contradicts the idea of singularity.
If you still refuse to agree with that, than you refuse to accept real science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2020 11:42:49
So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2020 11:43:45
It is the first time that I read this name.Thanks for confirming that you do not know what you are talking about.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2020 12:46:00
A neutron has a magnetic moment but no charge.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/10/2020 17:20:52
Do you mean that during our long discussion about neutron star you knew that it could/should collapse to Quark Star?It is the first time that I read this name.Thanks for confirming that you do not know what you are talking about.
If so, why you didn't mention it?
How could you claim that neutron star should collapse directly to singularity while you are fully aware about that quark star?
How can I trust your answers/messages while you do whatever it takes to confuse me, hide important information and even lie to me?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2020 17:26:19
So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2020 17:27:53
How can I trust your answers/messages while you do whatever it takes to confuse me, hide important information and even lie to me?You are hiding information; answer the question.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/10/2020 17:29:28
Just a note in passing
A neutron has a magnetic moment but no charge.
Thanks for this important information.
Do you mean that Neutron star could generate magnetic field without any need to be charged?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2020 17:30:27
If so, why you didn't mention it?You are claiming to know more about physics than everybody else. Why should we assume that you don't know stuff?
hide important informationDon't be silly, it's not "hidden"
It's on wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star
even lie to me?Got evidence of that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/10/2020 04:35:17
Please look at the following starting formula for general relativity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity
"spacetime is assumed to be four-dimensional, each index on a tensor can be one of four values. Hence, the total number of elements a tensor possesses equals 4R, where R is the count of the number of covariant {\displaystyle (b_{i})}(b_{i}) and contravariant {\displaystyle (a_{i})}(a_{i}) indices on the tensor, {\displaystyle r+s}{\displaystyle r+s} (a number called the rank of the tensor)."
Then it is stated:
"Some physical quantities are represented by tensors not all of whose components are independent. Important examples of such tensors include symmetric and antisymmetric tensors. Antisymmetric tensors are commonly used to represent rotations (for example, the vorticity tensor).
Although a generic rank R tensor in 4 dimensions has 4R components, constraints on the tensor such as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components. For example, a symmetric rank two tensor and possesses 10 independent components, whereas an antisymmetric (skew-symmetric) rank two tensor and has 6 independent components. For ranks greater than two, the symmetric or antisymmetric index pairs must be explicitly identified.
Antisymmetric tensors of rank 2 play important roles in relativity theory. The set of all such tensors - often called bivectors - forms a vector space of dimension 6, sometimes called bivector space."
So, first they use the "rank R tensor in 4 dimensions" so it "has 4R components
Why in some vectors they claim for 6 or 10 components/dimension?
The question is can we use it at higher dimension? So did we give up on some components/dimension?
Then it is stated: "as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components"
Could it be that those symmetry or antisymmetry components are not fully identical up to the infinity?
So, my impression is that they have give up on some components that have very minor impact on the whole formula.
Therefore, it has almost no negative impact on large scale.
That leads to the excellent formula of general relativity.
However, as we use that formula at very small scale the impact on the missing components are very critical.
Therefore, the outcome in the mathematics is singularity.
I'm quite sure that if we will add all the missing components we won't get any singularity at a very small scale as there is no error in the mathematics.
Conclusion - the singularity that we get from general relativity is based on the missing components. Therefore, this formula shouldn't be used in small scale.
Hence, there is no room for singularity in our real life.
We must use QM at that scale which fully contradicts the idea of singularity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2020 10:20:54
So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/10/2020 18:39:18
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on EarthOk
I have no problem to answer any question.
However, as you wish to change the subject of our discussion, let's summarize the following:
1. There is/was no singularity in our Universe. Not in any BH and not in the Big Bang moment.
2. Any BH has minimal physical size. If it rotates, it can surly generate magnetic field around it.
3. Any radiation or gas flow from a Neutron star/BH/SMBH/Quasar is ONLY due to its magnetic field. A BH without the ability to generate magnetic field, won't generate any sort of radiation.
4. There is no negative mass in our Universe. Therefore, the idea of hawking radiation that should evaporate a BH should be set at the garbage of the science history.
5. The accretion disc is affected by the main mass magnetic field and not the other way.
6. There is also no Curvature in space in our real Universe - Based on the explanation that I have offered about the missing components in general relativity which leads our scientists to a fatal error of singularity (at the infinity small scale), the same idea of missing components leads our scientists to the error of curvature in space.
Once we agree with all the above, let's shift gear to your question:
I have stated that the Universe is infinite in its size and in its age. The CMBR is the outcome of the radiation of that infinite Universe.
I have explained that infinite universe acts as infinite Oven.
Theoretically, we could divide that infinite Universe to infinite sections each at a size cube of 100 billion light years or even 100M LY.
We could set some imaginary walls around each cube in order to convert it to an "opaque and non-reflective object".
http://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
"A blackbody spectrum is produced by an isothermal, opaque and non-reflecting object. Usually a cavity with a small hole is used in the laboratory to make an opaque and non-reflective object. Radiation that enters the cavity through the hole will have to bounce off many walls before it returns to the outside, so even if the walls are only somewhat dark, the hole will appear to be completely black. The diagram at right shows such a cavity, with the blue incoming ray being absorbed completely while the red rays show the outgoing thermal radiation. A simple gedanken experiment shows that the spectrum emitted by a blackbody can only depend on its temperature T."
So, each cube' radiation would be black body and its temp would be as follow:
"The graph above shows the measured brightness temperature TB of the CMB at many different wavelengths. Clearly TB = 2.725 K is consistent with all the data within the statistical scatter expected for the stated errors."
As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.
I hope that you have got the requested answer.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2020 18:52:47
However, as you wish to change the subject of our discussion, let's summarize the following:I am not trying to change the subject.
It does not make sense to wait until we agree all that nonsense, because we never will.
It's a whole lot of baseless assertions.
I have stated that the Universe is infinite in its size and in its age. The CMBR is the outcome of the radiation of that infinite Universe.You have made that incorrect statement before.
That's my point.
Theoretically, we could divide that infinite Universe to infinite sections each at a size cube of 100 billion light years or even 100M LY.Then we wouldn't really be looking at the same thing but... never mind.
As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.Finally.
You have admitted that you were wrong.
It only took six months or so
You said this
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
And now you finally admit that, if we were inside a big box with cold walls the CMBR would look exactly the same.
So the CMBR is not proof that the universe is infinite.
We can now move on to the second line in your idea.
Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.OK, do you realise that, this statement
(1) is a non sequitur and
(2) is based on the false premise of your first statement and therefore can not be relied on?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2020 18:57:31
At the rate of 6 months per line for you to realise that you are wrong, it will take decades to get through the whole of your non- theory.
I'm patient enough, but unlikely to live that long.
Just a hint: it might be better if you don't need to be asked the same question a dozen times before you answer it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/10/2020 19:12:36
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
And now you finally admit that, if we were inside a big box with cold walls the CMBR would look exactly the same.
So the CMBR is not proof that the universe is infinite.
No, you didn't understand my explanation.
The CMBH is a solid proof that the Universe must be infinite.
Please read it again:
Theoretically, we could divide that infinite Universe to infinite sections each at a size cube of 100 billion light years or even 100M LY.So, we all can agree that in an "opaque and non-reflective object" cube the radiation must be black body.
We could set some imaginary walls around each cube in order to convert it to an "opaque and non-reflective object".
However, in order to keep that Black body radiation the Universe MUST be INFINITE as explained:
As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.If the Universe was finite, then by taking out the imaginary walls from the finite cubes in finite Universe the radiation would change dramatically.
Therefore, the blackbody radiation could only exists in an INFINITE universe.
You have one more error.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42OK, do you realise that, this statement
Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
(1) is a non sequitur and
(2) is based on the false premise of your first statement and therefore can not be relied on?
As the Universe is infinite, an infinite time/age is needed to set that kind of Universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2020 19:17:56
The CMBH is a solid proof that the Universe must be infinite.No
Because there are other circumstances- like being inside a large but finite cold box where the CMBR would be exactly the same.
You already said this.
As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.
It's going to take even longer to sort this if you insist on arguing with yourself.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/10/2020 19:35:10
Because there are other circumstances- like being inside a large but finite cold box where the CMBR would be exactly the same.No!
You have only two options to get the blackbody radiation:
1. Inside an "opaque and non-reflective object" at any finite size.
2. In infinite universe size.
There is no possibility to get it at "inside a large but finite cold box". This is pure imagination.
I have stated:
As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.However, if the Universe is finite (at any large size) then at any direction that we move, at some point we should get to its end. Without the imaginary walls at that end there will be no BBR. As there are no imaginary walls in our real universe, then there is no way to get the BBR in any size of finite universe.
Is it clear by now?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2020 20:02:31
You have only two options to get the blackbody radiation:
1. Inside an "opaque and non-reflective object" at any finite size.
2. In infinite universe size.
Plain wrong.
The walls of my cellar are whitewashed.
I have moved all the stuff out of it.
And I have a single candle in there. The flame is burning at about 1200 C
What is the colour temperature of the radiation in the room?
OK, do you now see that you have more than 2 ways to get BBR?
Imagine I go outside on a foggy moonless night.
I have that candle with me.
What does the radiation that i can see look like?
What about if it's a foggy night and there are lots of candles around me- each one too far away to see properly but together lighting up the place.
What does the ambient radiation look like?
Do you see that there are far more than 2 ways to do it.
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?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/10/2020 05:29:34
OK, do you now see that you have more than 2 ways to get BBR?No, No No
The request for BBR is very clear and it was already given to you:
http://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
"In order to make a blackbody spectrum, an object has to be opaque, non-reflective and isothermal."
It is even stated that:
"Thus a star, which is opaque, does not produce a blackbody spectrum because we can see both cooler outer layers and hotter deeper layers."
So let me explain it slowly to you:
"In order to make a blackbody spectrum, an object has to fulfill the following three elements:
1. Opaque
2. Non-reflective
3. Isothermal.
Once that is clear to you let's see your fatal errors:
The walls of my cellar are whitewashed.The universe has no walls therefore, it can't be considered as a whitewashed cellar.
So, if the Universe had walls around it, then we could call it a cube/sphere/room/cellar with whitewashed wall.
As I have already explained:
we all can agree that in an "opaque and non-reflective object" cube the radiation must be black body.In this case, it is perfectly ok to assume that inside that cellar the radiation must be black body.
Therefore, if you claim that the Universe is finite and located inside that cellar, than you have to prove that it has whitewashed walls all around it.
As it is quite clear to all of us that there are no walls around the Universe, than the Universe can't be considered as a whitewashed cellar/room.
I have moved all the stuff out of it.As the Universe has no walls you can't compare it to cellar or room.
And I have a single candle in there. The flame is burning at about 1200 C
What is the colour temperature of the radiation in the room?
Imagine I go outside on a foggy moonless night.Sorry, you have a fatal mistake.
I have that candle with me.
What does the radiation that i can see look like?
What about if it's a foggy night and there are lots of candles around me- each one too far away to see properly but together lighting up the place.
What does the ambient radiation look like?
A foggy moonless night can't be considered as opaque, non-reflective and isothermal object.
This is pure imagination.
And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.Ok Let's continue with you imagination:
And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.The answer had been given by our scientists:
What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?
"Thus a star, which is opaque, does not produce a blackbody spectrum because we can see both cooler outer layers and hotter deeper layers."
So, even if we wish to believe that at some point in the Universe life it really carried a BBR, it can't hold it any more if it has expanded, stretching that radiation and eliminating the walls around it.
No walls means - No BBR.
So, you can stretch it to any finite size, it won't help without walls.
Just if you expand/stretch the Universe to the infinity you can get the BBR without any need for walls around it.
Is it clear to you by now?
I told you it's 14 billion years old.OK.
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?
Do you confirm that a Universe with age of 14BY can't be infinite?
So, if you insist to have a BBR in that imaginary finite Universe which exists in your imaginary model, then you MUST show where are the whitewashed walls of your imaginary cellar' Universe are located.
You set the model, so you also must set the exact locations of those walls.
You have started your first message with:
Plain wrong.Therefore, please show the location of those walls.
The walls of my cellar are whitewashed.
If you don't know the exact location of those walls, then it's better for you to set your entire model in the garbage of the science history.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2020 08:36:32
"In order to make a blackbody spectrum, an object has to be opaque, non-reflective and isothermal."No
That is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition
Do you understand the difference?
Do you realise that a tungsten lamp emits a very near blackbody spectrum?
Do you think it's a box with a hole in it.
"All alsatians are dogs" is not the same as "all dogs are alsatians."
A hole in a box will emit BBR but not all BBR emitters are a hole in a box.
The Sun matches BBR quite well. That's how we know how hot the surface is.
"Thus a star, which is opaque, does not produce a blackbody spectrum because we can see both cooler outer layers and hotter deeper layers."The universe is not, and never was "a star".
No walls means - No BBR.That is not true.
It does not matter how often you say it; it remains false.
They only need to be "optically thick".
So, if you insist to have a BBR in that imaginary finite Universe which exists in your imaginary model, then you MUSTNo, I don't.
I can point out that the entire universe was, at that time opaque.
Everywhere was a "wall" as far as light was concerned.
That's the point you keep missing.
Now, without waiting another 6 months, answer the question.
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/10/2020 18:04:35
How could you reject the clear explanation which had been given by our scientists?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:29:34No
"In order to make a blackbody spectrum, an object has to be opaque, non-reflective and isothermal."
That is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition
Do you understand the difference?
Do you realise that a tungsten lamp emits a very near blackbody spectrum?
Do you think it's a box with a hole in it.
"All alsatians are dogs" is not the same as "all dogs are alsatians."
Do you really believe that your understanding is superior as they have no idea about Black Body radiation?
They clearly claim that:
http://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.htmlThen, you don't have to argue with me. You have to argue with them.
"In order to make a blackbody spectrum, an object has to be opaque, non-reflective and isothermal."
In any case, as you claim that there is no need for walls in order to get the BBR:
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:29:34Then show the article that could support your unrealistic understanding.
No walls means - No BBR.
That is not true.
It does not matter how often you say it; it remains false.
They only need to be "optically thick".
You have started the whole idea of BBR with walls around a cellar and now you end it with that unrealistic idea of "optically thick".
Sorry, that "optically thick" isn't part of the requirement from a BBR as explained clearly by our scientists.
I can point out that the entire universe was, at that time opaque."optically thick" can't be considered as a wall.
Everywhere was a "wall" as far as light was concerned.
That's the point you keep missing.The real point is that you want to have a BBR in a finite universe while it has no walls and it can't carry a BBR.
So, you offer some imagination about walls around a cellar and then you call it "optically thick" while you clearly reject the explanation which had been given by our scientists.
Therefore, if you wish to hold some water in your imaginary theory, then you MUST show the article which explains how an "optically thick" could be considered as a wall for a cellar.
So please show the article that supports your unrealistic understanding/ideas.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2020 18:27:33
"optically thick" can't be considered as a wall.From a photon's point of view it can be.
No other point of view is relevant.
Then, you don't have to argue with me. You have to argue with them.No.
The conditions in the early universe are "opaque, non-reflective and isothermal"
So there's no problem.
However, the radiation from a coal fire is still a very good approximation to BBR.
That's a simple fact; feel free to test it.
It's not that I ma arguing with them.
It's that you are arguing against reality.
And the thing is that a candle, a light bulb and a coal fire are not a container with a hole.
Why are you still trying to pretend that they are?
How could you reject the clear explanation which had been given by our scientists?No.
That is, however, what you are doing in not accepting that the CMB is what is leftover from the BBR of the early universe.
Then show the article that could support your unrealistic understanding.I don't need an article; look at the Sun, or a candle flame or a fire.
They are all pretty good approximations to BBR.
Sorry, that "optically thick" isn't part of the requirement from a BBR as explained clearly by our scientists.I am one of our scientists you idiot.
I'm a spectroscopist.
This sort of thing is my day job.
how an "optically thick" could be considered as a wall for a cellar.You just proved that you don't know what you are talking about
"optically thick" is an adjective, not a noun.
You can't have
an "optically thick"for the same reason that you can't have a "green striped".
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/10/2020 19:50:46
As you have failed to offer an article, then it proves that your understanding is clearly unrealistic and there is no need to continue the discussion on this issue.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:04:35I don't need an article;
Then show the article that could support your unrealistic understanding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2020 20:22:13
then it proves that your understanding is clearly unrealistic and there is no need to continue the discussion on this issue.No
It shows that I recognize there is a real world out there.
You don't need to look at a wiki article; you need to look at reality.
But, since you insist.
Like I said, the light from a tungsten lamp looks like BBR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature#/media/File:Spectral_Power_Distributions.png
What you are dooing is absurd.
You are pretending thet the whole of science is wrong because I thought you were big enough to check that for yourself.
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/10/2020 06:27:25
I can point out that the entire universe was, at that time opaque.No, I didn't miss this issue.
Everywhere was a "wall" as far as light was concerned.
That's the point you keep missing.
You actually claim that based on the BBT there were some sort of "walls" all around the early Universe.
That is OK with me as this is your theory and you can set it as you wish.
However, it proves that you do understand that in order to get a BBR in any sort of box/universe you must have walls around it.
Therefore, how can you claim that our current finite universe without walls could still carry a BBR?
Why do you think that this lamp can support your unrealistic ideas about the Universe' BBR?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:50:46No
Then it proves that your understanding is clearly unrealistic and there is no need to continue the discussion on this issue.
It shows that I recognize there is a real world out there.
You don't need to look at a wiki article; you need to look at reality.
But, since you insist.
Like I said, the light from a tungsten lamp looks like BBR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature#/media/File:Spectral_Power_Distributions.png
You have stated that the Universe was never a star:
The universe is not, and never was "a star".So, how can you now compare the Universe to a lamp?
Sorry, you have totally failed to show how our current finite Universe without any walls around it could carry a BBR.
All your explanations prove that you have to improve your knowledge in black body radiation.
So, please, if you don't have a specific article about the feasibility to get a Black Body radiation in a finite box/universe without walls, then we clearly wasting our time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2020 08:51:22
Why do you think that this lamp can support your unrealistic ideas about the Universe' BBR?Because it undermines your irrational objections.
You actually claim that based on the BBT there were some sort of "walls" all around the early Universe.Where do you think I made that claim?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2020 08:53:57
So, how can you now compare the Universe to a lamp?I didn't.
I am using the lamp, which emits pretty close to BBR to prove that you are wrong when you say
No walls means - No BBR.
Do you now accept that you are wrong about that?
Do you agree that , as in the cases I have shown, you can get BBR without needing a box with a hole in it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2020 08:58:36
Sorry, you have totally failed to show how our current finite Universe without any walls around it could carry a BBR.I have not yet demonstrated it to you, but that is because you refuse to throw away this mistaken idea you have.
You have only two options to get the blackbody radiation:
1. Inside an "opaque and non-reflective object" at any finite size.
2. In infinite universe size.
In reality, most things emit something fairly close to BBR.
Go and do some research.
You will discover that this misunderstanding of yours is part of the reason you can not understand why your first few lines, posted 6 months ago, are wrong.
And then, maybe we can start to make progress.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/10/2020 13:20:34
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/10/2020 19:35:10
You have only two options to get the blackbody radiation:
1. Inside an "opaque and non-reflective object" at any finite size.
2. In infinite universe size.
In reality, most things emit something fairly close to BBR.
Go and do some research.
In reality, you contradict yourself.
If no walls are needed for a finite universe to generate BBR, why did you use the "walls" for the early Universe:
It seems that you have totally got lost. Why don't you read some information about the BBR before you try to explain it to somebody else?
As you couldn't find any relevant article, let me help you with the following:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_9/notes39.html
"The Cosmic Microwave Background is a relic of the time when the universe was hot, dense, and opaque."
So, the BBR that we see today in the CMB is due to that early universe when it was hot, dense, and opaque.
However, it is also stated:
"So why, you may well ask, is today's low-density, largely transparent universe filled with blackbody radiation? After all, blackbody radiation is produced by hot, dense, opaque objects. For instance:
The Sun is made of hot, dense, ionized gas.
The Sun is opaque because it is ionized. (Free electrons scatter photons, preventing them from zipping straight through the Sun.)
The Sun emits blackbody radiation.
However, the Big Bang theory states that the universe was once hotter and denser than it is today. If the Big Bang theory is accurate:
The early universe was full of hot, dense, ionized gas.
The early universe was opaque because it was ionized.
The early universe emitted blackbody radiation.
As the universe expanded, however, it became cooler and less dense. About 300,000 years after the start of expansion, the temperature of the universe had cooled to 3000 Kelvin. At this temperature:
Protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. (This process is known to physicists as recombination.)
The universe, lacking free electrons to scatter the photons, suddenly became transparent.
The liberated photons started streaming freely in all directions.
Thus, the photons in the Cosmic Microwave Background are relics of the early, hot, dense, ionized, opaque universe. They have been traveling through space for over 13 billion years, and hence are sometimes called ``the oldest light in the universe''.
So, our scientists clearly understand the problematic of having a BBR in our current finite Universe without walls.
Therefore, they claim that ONLY the early Universe had emitted BBR.
Hence, the current finite Universe without walls can't generate any BBR. We actually see today the radiation which had been emitted by the early Universe 13 BY ago.
So, let's see if I understand it correctly:
1. The Early universe has got its BBR only when it was opaque due to ionized gas. If I recall it correctly, that Gas had been created when the universe age was about 380 MY.
2. So, the Big bang itself didn't create the BBR in the early Universe. It took it about 380MY until the BBR had popped up when the Universe had created the ionized gas and therefore it was opaque.
3. The meaning of Opaque is also a "walls" around the early Universe as you have already stated:
Quote
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:36:324. However, after the time of that opaque, (or when those "walls") had gone, the Universe couldn't generate any sort of BBR.
I can point out that the entire universe was, at that time opaque.
Everywhere was a "wall" as far as light was concerned.
5. Therefore, our scientists claim that:
"the photons in the Cosmic Microwave Background are relics of the early, hot, dense, ionized, opaque universe. They have been traveling through space for over 13 billion years, and hence are sometimes called ``the oldest light in the universe''.
If you agree with all the above, then we can agree on the following:
1. Your understanding that a finite Universe without walls can generate a BBR is absolutely WRONG. It's better for you to read some articles and improve your knowledge before you start argue on something that you totally don't understand.
2. We need to verify if it is feasible to get today the radiation of that specific moment of time in the age of the Universe (380M) when it was opaque. For example, why we don't get today the radiation of the Universe when the Big bang took place (at that moment, it didn't carry a BBR) Or why not from any other age while it wasn't opaque anymore and it couldn't generate any sort of black body radiation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2020 13:49:31
I'm still trying to get you to recognise that your opening few lines in this topic are wrong.
But you never answer a simple question.
It's not that I get lost, that's the problem. The problem is that you refuse to stick to a point. instead, you post stacks of stuff like this
"
"So why, you may well ask, is today's low-density, largely transparent universe filled with blackbody radiation? After all, blackbody radiation is produced by hot, dense, opaque objects. For instance:
The Sun is made of hot, dense, ionized gas.
The Sun is opaque because it is ionized. (Free electrons scatter photons, preventing them from zipping straight through the Sun.)
The Sun emits blackbody radiation.
However, the Big Bang theory states that the universe was once hotter and denser than it is today. If the Big Bang theory is accurate:
The early universe was full of hot, dense, ionized gas.
The early universe was opaque because it was ionized.
The early universe emitted blackbody radiation.
As the universe expanded, however, it became cooler and less dense. About 300,000 years after the start of expansion, the temperature of the universe had cooled to 3000 Kelvin. At this temperature:
Protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. (This process is known to physicists as recombination.)
The universe, lacking free electrons to scatter the photons, suddenly became transparent.
The liberated photons started streaming freely in all directions.
Thus, the photons in the Cosmic Microwave Background are relics of the early, hot, dense, ionized, opaque universe. They have been traveling through space for over 13 billion years, and hence are sometimes called ``the oldest light in the universe''."
Which I have known for 30 years or more and which can not be relevant, rather than actually answering a simple question.
Normally when people fail to answer a question like that, it's a politician who knows that the answer to the question shows them to be a fool.
Is that the issue here?
Do you actually know that an honest answer to this question will make you look a fool?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/10/2020 16:15:17
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
When we discuss about magnetic field, it was urgent to you to shift the discussion to black body radiation without getting any real conclusions.
Now when we discuss on Black body radiation it is urgent to you to shift it again to night sky
Is it real?
Do you have any interest in real science?
Would you kindly advice what is your real problem man???
What do you want to show?
It is very clear to me that you just wish to show that I don't understand science while based on your messages it is very clear that your knowledge in science is quite poor
So how can you claim that:.
I'm a spectroscopist.Please, take your time and read some more scientific articles about Night sky, Dark day, worm Moon or any other idea which you might have.
As you clearly don't have any interest in my explanations, I really feel that we are wasting our time.
Good Luck for you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2020 17:19:51
Now when we discuss on Black body radiation it is urgent to you to shift it again to night skyThe night sky is black body radiation so that isn't a shift, is it?
But, in reality, we have been discussing it for 6 months- it's just that you have refused to talk sensibly.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/03/2020 10:44:30
But I predict that Dave isn't even going to address the fact that he was wrong in the first few lines.
I was right.
while based on your messages it is very clear that your knowledge in science is quite poorOK
So show something where what I said was actually wrong.
Would you kindly advice what is your real problem man???[/quote]
My problem is that you turned up on a discussion forum, but refuse to actually discus things.
When someone raises an objection to your so-called "theory", you ignore it.
But first, stop pretending to be a bad politician, and answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/10/2020 03:16:15
I am one of our scientists you idiot.Sorry
I have no intention to continue the discussion with you.
Please stop posting any message in this thread.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2020 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
SorryGood to know that you are sorry for cluttering the site with this nonsense.
I have no intention to continue the discussion with you.
Please stop posting any message in this thread.
If you don't want to discuss things then you should not be on a discussion forum; feel free to leave.
I decide whether I post or not.
You don't get a say in the matter; if you don't like that, you shouldn't have signed up to it.
I think that, if there's anyone else still reading this thread, they have realised that you are hopelessly wrong and that you know you are wrong.
That's the only plausible reason for you to repeatedly refuse to answer a simple question.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/10/2020 20:39:44
I have few questions for you
Please see the following explanation:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_9/notes39.html
"Why, however, do we see a Cosmic MICROWAVE Background? At the era of recombination (the time when neutral atoms formed and the universe became transparent), the temperature was T = 3000 Kelvin (about the surface temperature of an M star, such as Betelgeuse). The wavelength of maximum emission was then 970 nanometers, in the infrared. When the universe first became transparent, therefore, observers would have seen a Cosmic INFRARED Background. However, since the era of recombination, the universe has expanded by a factor of 1100, stretching lambdamax from 970 nanometers to 1 millimeter (that is, 1,000,000 nanometers). This is equivalent to cooling the temperature of the Cosmic Background from 3000 Kelvin to 2.725 Kelvin."
What can we learn from that?
1. The radiation of the CMB came from the era of recombination. At that time the temperature of the Cosmic Background was 3000 Kelvin
2. From that time the universe has expanded by a factor of 1100. Therefore, based on the BBT the current temp is 2.725 Kelvin
Let's stop at this stage and try to understand the real meaning of that.
Based on the BBT the space itself is expanding.
Hence, if we go back to the era of recombination the space of the early Universe was very compact.
Let's assume that the radius of that Universe was R.
Please try to help with the following questions:
1. What was there outside the radius R (From R+1 to the Infinity)?
If there was also space (even if it was empty space), then how can we claim that the space is expanding while there is already space outside R up to the infinity?
If there was no space, than what was there?
2. Why do we claim that there are no walls around the expanding space?
Based on the BBT, it is clear that the space itself is expanding. Therefore, if during the era of recombination the radius of the expanded space was R then it is very clear that there must be some sort of walls or barrier between R to R+1. (Otherwise, how could we claim that the space is expanding?)
Therefore, how can we claim that there is no walls around our expanding universe while it is clear that at any given moment there must be a significant difference between the space inside that R to the space or no space outside R (or R+1).
3. Why the Universe should decrease its temp as it expand?
Based on the BBT the space is expanding, while it carries with it the matter that had created by the Big Bang. Therefore, the concentrated matter from that era of recombination isn't moving to cooler space but it is moving with the space. So, it surly become less dense but as the space is expanding and nothing could cool the temp of that matter, why do we assume that the temp of the matter or the CMB should be decreased?
Just as an example - Let's look at our sun. Let's set it in a closed sphere and claim that this is the whole Universe.
Let's also assume that it has a fixed temp in that sphere.
Now, if we expand that sphere, while we verify that nothing from outside could get in and nothing from inside could get out (like conservation of energy). So, why the expansion itself should decrease the temp of the matter? Don't you think that this idea contradicts the conservation of energy law?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2020 21:06:12
If there was no space, than what was there?Nothing; not even space.
Why do we claim that there are no walls around the expanding space?Because that would have stopped it expanding.
it is very clear that there must be some sort of walls or barrier between R to R+1.No.
That's just something you made up.
Therefore, how can we claim that there is no walls around our expanding universe while it is clear that at any given moment there must be a significant difference between the space inside that R to the space or no space outside R (or R+1)."Six feet from the end of my nose " defines a region, but doesn't need a wall.
So you are simply wrong.
matter, why do we assume that the temp of the matter or the CMB should be decreased?Because the wavelength increases as the space stretches.
Longer wavelengths correspond to cooler radiation.
How could it not cool down?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2020 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/10/2020 05:37:18
Quote
"Six feet from the end of my nose " defines a region, but doesn't need a wall.The skin of the nose is the wall.
So, assuming that the skin gives 100% isolation/protection from outside, the temp of a molecular in the nose below that skin should be identical to any other molecular in the body.
Hence, theoretically, if the skin could set a perfect isolation, we could claim that our body is located inside a black box.
In the same token, if "Nothing; not even space" is located outside the expanding space, than any star at that is located exactly at the edge of the Universe would not lose any temp or energy to the aria outside the expanding universe. So it won't feel that it is located at the edge. That actually represents the ultimate understanding for black box.
So, even that we claim that there are no walls around the expanding universe, we actually describing an expanding universe in expanding black box. However, as any black box must have walls around it, than it proves that there is a fatal error in the BBT.
So, we have to take a decision
1. If a star at the edge of the Universe doesn't feel that it is located at the edge, then there must be an edge/walls/barrier to the universe. Those "walls" keep the difference between the expanding space inside the universe to the "nothing" outside the universe
2. However, if the star feels that there is an edge by losing its temp/energy to the aria outside the current space of the Universe, than how can we claim that there is Nothing; not even space outside?
Quote
Because the wavelength increases as the space stretches.This is absolutely none realistic.
Longer wavelengths correspond to cooler radiation.
If someone will stretch its nose, does it mean that the molecular inside its nose should have Longer wavelengths?
Sorry, if the nose was very flexible and we could stretch it to one KM or even 13BLY without breaking its skin (while it gives 100% isolation), there will be no Longer wavelengths or cooler radiation inside that nose.
Multiverse-
Our scientists have just found some sort of observation/evidence that our universe is just one single sphere in the open space to the infinity.
So, how can we claim that "Nothing; not even space" there is outside of our Universe shpere while now we have found that there are many other universes/multiverse outside our current Universe?
Hence, the idea of the Multiverse by itself should kill immediately the BBT.
Sorry, our scientists can't assume something and contradict it by other assumption/verification.
How any one which consider itself as a scientist can't see that there are severe contradictions in that none realistic theory which is called BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
The skin of the nose is the wall.Yes,but the boundary we are talking about is 6 feet away from it, so it isn't relevant.
So, assuming that the skin gives 100% isolation/protection from outsideIt doesn't, but nobody would expect it to.
Hence, theoretically, if the skin could set a perfect isolation, we could claim that our body is located inside a black box.No.
Because the skin is part of the body.
But it's still not got anything to do with the actual question.
However, as any black box must have walls around it, than it proves that there is a fatal error in the BBT.No.
That's still wrong.
Look at a candle flame, or a tungsten lamp.
This is absolutely none realistic.It is observably true. Gravity stretches space and affects the wavelength of EM radiation.
This is an experimentally measurable effect.
If you actually understood science, you would know that.
Sorry, our scientists can't assume something and contradict it by other assumption/verification.You are the one making silly assumptions.
The measurements show that you are wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/10/2020 20:01:04
Quote
Nothing; not even space.I wonder how a person that consider himself as a scientist can claim that Nothing; not even space exists outside our Universe, while in the same token he confirms that there are other Universes outside our universe.
So, how other universes could exist in the outside aria where there is nothing, not even space?
It's not an issue of science; it is a simple issue of logic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51
I wonder how a person that consider himself as a scientist can claim that Nothing; not even space exists outside our Universe,Oddly I wondered the opposite.
Since the universe is universal, it contains everything, including the whole of space..
And therefore there must be nothing outside it.
It is, as you say a simple matter of logic.
Universe, while in the same token he confirms that there are other Universes outside our universe.Not sure I ever did that.
However, enough about that, why not just answer this simple question (since you plainly can't cope with the difficult ones).
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/10/2020 06:08:10
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Well, we have already deeply discussed this issue.
Unfortunately, you clearly don't remember that.
So, let me tell you the following.
There is no problem with the night sky paradox as relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.
The missing components in the starting formula of relativity leads to those errors.
Therefore, in very small scale - THERE IS NO singularity in our universe.
Not for any BH and not even for the Big Bang itself.
In the same token, in very large scale - THRE IS NO curvature in our Universe.
Therefore, if we go all the way to the left we will stay at the left up to the infinity.
The idea that as we go to the left we might come from the right due to the curvature in our universe is totally incorrect.
Hence, the relativity velocity formula fails to work when it comes to a very far away space-time or location.
When galaxy at the very far end location is moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location, at some point (location & velocity) its light wouldn't get to us any more.
So, we get the light only from those galaxies that are located up to a distance D (assuming that at any direction there is the same correlation between velocity to distance...).
Hence, our real Universe is infinite while the location of light that we can still get is finite (D).
Therefore, if we could go to a galaxy that is located at 100BLY, One Trillion LY or even one Million of trillion LY away from us (at any direction) we would see there a similar space view as we see in our current location.
The CMB there would be identical and it would also carry the same Black body radiation.
However, at those far end locations we won't be able to get any light from the Milky Way galaxy.
Conclusion:
When we look at any direction, we all must agree that there are infinite galaxies up to the infinity in that single line direction. However, the light that we can get to our location from those galaxies is limited (D) based on distance/velocity of the galaxies. As we all know the further away the galaxy is located the faster away it is moving. Hence we can actually get the light only from limited no of galaxies (up to distance D) in that infinite long line.
Hence, although there are infinite galaxies in each line directions, we can get/observe the light only from a finite no of galaxies (up to D).
Therefore, there is no room for the night dark paradox.
Is it finally clear to you by now?
I hope that after jumping from point to point, you don't have an intention to do it again...
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/10/2020 11:32:45
relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.There is no evidence for that.
On the contrary, when tested on every scale relativity works.
So you are making up false "reasons" why your idea might work.
Well, we have already deeply discussed this issue.You ignore the question; you have never answered it..
Try answering it, In that model universe, what would the background radiation from the night sky be?
I will make it easy for you; Would it look like the CMBR that we see in this universe- essentially BBR at about 2.7K?
OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no to answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/10/2020 15:18:15
NoQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:08:10There is no evidence for that.
relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.
On the contrary, when tested on every scale relativity works.
You have a fatal error
I have already explained it very clear during our discussion about singularity:
Please look at the following starting formula for general relativity:So, in very small scale the relativity breaks down due to those missing components in the formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity
"spacetime is assumed to be four-dimensional, each index on a tensor can be one of four values. Hence, the total number of elements a tensor possesses equals 4R, where R is the count of the number of covariant {\displaystyle (b_{i})}(b_{i}) and contravariant {\displaystyle (a_{i})}(a_{i}) indices on the tensor, {\displaystyle r+s}{\displaystyle r+s} (a number called the rank of the tensor)."
Then it is stated:
"Some physical quantities are represented by tensors not all of whose components are independent. Important examples of such tensors include symmetric and antisymmetric tensors. Antisymmetric tensors are commonly used to represent rotations (for example, the vorticity tensor).
Although a generic rank R tensor in 4 dimensions has 4R components, constraints on the tensor such as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components. For example, a symmetric rank two tensor and possesses 10 independent components, whereas an antisymmetric (skew-symmetric) rank two tensor and has 6 independent components. For ranks greater than two, the symmetric or antisymmetric index pairs must be explicitly identified.
Antisymmetric tensors of rank 2 play important roles in relativity theory. The set of all such tensors - often called bivectors - forms a vector space of dimension 6, sometimes called bivector space."
So, first they use the "rank R tensor in 4 dimensions" so it "has 4R components
Why in some vectors they claim for 6 or 10 components/dimension?
The question is can we use it at higher dimension? So did we give up on some components/dimension?
Then it is stated: "as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components"
Could it be that those symmetry or antisymmetry components are not fully identical up to the infinity?
So, my impression is that they have give up on some components that have very minor impact on the whole formula.
Therefore, it has almost no negative impact on large scale.
That leads to the excellent formula of general relativity.
However, as we use that formula at very small scale the impact on the missing components are very critical.
Therefore, the outcome in the mathematics is singularity.
I'm quite sure that if we will add all the missing components we won't get any singularity at a very small scale as there is no error in the mathematics.
Conclusion - the singularity that we get from general relativity is based on the missing components. Therefore, this formula shouldn't be used in small scale.
Hence, there is no room for singularity in our real life.
We must use QM at that scale which fully contradicts the idea of singularity.
At that scale we must use QM that totally contradicts the idea of singularity.
In the same token, the relativity breaks down also in a very large scale
Unfortunatly, our scientists do not develop a special formula for very long distance up to the infinity.
Therefore, by using the relativity formula, they get a severe error.
If we could add back to the relativity formula all the missing components we should find that there is no curvature in our universe and the inability for the very far away galaxy' light to get to our location while the galaxy is moving away much faster than the speed of light.
So, first we all must agree that there are missing components in the relativity formula.
Then, we must add all of them back and verify the errors at very small scale and very large scale.
However, it is very clear to me that you have no interest in real science.
It is also very clear that you try to protect the BBT under any sort of contradiction as you are driven by some sort of spiracle mission.
I have noticed that the title under your name is: "Forum GOD!"
So, could it be that you fight under the mission of god?
Do you feel that if someone goes against the BBT he actually goes against your religious?
I have tried to verify what might be the connection between BBT to God and found the following:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330534047_THE_THEORY_OF_BIG_BANG_AND_THE_EARLY-CHRISTIAN_TEACHING_ABOUT_THE_'EX_NIHILO'_CREATION_OF_THE_UNIVERSE
"The Big Bang Theory considers that the Universe, space and time have a beginning. Similar is the position of the Christian writers of the early Christian Church, who support the ex nihilo-ἐκ μὴὴ ὄντος (ek me ontos = from the "non-being") creation of the world through the divine "energy", with the two theories converging to the fact that space and time have a beginning"
Based on this article the Christian Church is the highest supportive for the Big Bang.
I have full respect for the Christian Church. However, I couldn't find any other religious that supports the BBT at that level.
So, Could it be that you are part of a religious which believes in the BBT?
Could it be that your mission is to extend the life of the BBT as long as possible and kick out any idea which contradicts it under any situation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/10/2020 16:02:26
No wiki article will change that.
If you could demonstrate that relativity was wrong, you would suddenly become the most famous physicist of the century.
But all you have demonstrated is that you don't understand physics.
Could it be that your mission is to extend the life of the BBT as long as possible and kick out any idea which contradicts it under any situation?No, I'm just trying to stop people thinking that your idea (It never got close to being a theory) is wrong.
It's wrong in the first few lines at the start of the thread.
And you know it is; that's why you refuse to give a simple yes or no answer to a question.
You know that the answer which is correct will undermine your whole hypothesis.
It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it.
I'm just trying to stamp out nonsense like yours.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/10/2020 17:14:24
In reality, every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct to the limits of the precision of the measurement.This is clearly incorrect.
Do we really see/observe the singularity at a very small scale?
Do we really see/observe the end/edge of the observable Universe or the entire Universe?
If not, how can you claim that "every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct".
If you could demonstrate that relativity was wrong, you would suddenly become the most famous physicist of the century.
I have offered several articles which fully confirm that QM contradicts the idea of singularity that is a direct outcome from relativity.
Do you confirm that there are missing components in the relativity formula?
How do we know what is the real impact of those missing components at the very small scale or very large scale?
Do you agree at last the due to QM there is no room for singularity?
It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it.Wow
If you really don't care about the BBT and you only focus on real science
Then let's try to focus on real information.
Please let me know if you agree on the following by Yes or no:
1. Relativity - There are missing components in this formula
2. Dark matter - There is no evidence/observation for dark matter. Without dark energy we can't explain the orbital velocity in the spiral galaxy
3. Dark energy - There is no evidence/observation for dark energy. Without the dark energy we can't explain the requested negative gravity that is needed to boost the expansion at the very far end locations.
4. Negative mass - There is no evidence for negative mass. Without negative mass the idea of hawking radiation is just incorrect.
5. Magnetic field - Do you agree that without magnetic field there is no possibility to generate any sort of quark or particle.
Our scientists know that. Therefore, they claim for electromagnetism during the Quark_epoch in order to form quarks 10^−12 seconds after the Big Bang.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_epoch
In physical cosmology the Quark epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when the fundamental interactions of gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong interaction and the weak interaction had taken their present forms, but the temperature of the universe was still too high to allow quarks to bind together to form hadrons.[1] The quark epoch began approximately 10−12 seconds after the Big Bang, when the preceding electroweak epoch ended as the electroweak interaction separated into the weak interaction and electromagnetism. During the quark epoch the universe was filled with a dense, hot quark–gluon plasma, containing quarks, leptons and their antiparticles. Collisions between particles were too energetic to allow quarks to combine into mesons or baryons. The quark epoch ended when the universe was about 10−6 seconds old, when the average energy of particle interactions had fallen below the binding energy of hadrons. The following period, when quarks became confined within hadrons, is known as the hadron epoch.
So, please explain the source of that electromagnetism that took place ONLY from 10^-12 Sec to 10^-6 sec after the BBT.
How electromagnetism could be created by a Bang?
How could it be that in that ultra short time all/most of the energy of the BB had been transformed to quarks?
If you really care about real science, it’s the time to set the BBT in the garbage of the science history and deliver me a reward for the discovery.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/10/2020 17:39:16
Do we really see/observe the singularity at a very small scale?I didn't say we looked at singularities.
Do we really see/observe the end/edge of the observable Universe or the entire Universe?
.
Is that straw man the best you can do?
Yes, we do see the furthest parts of the visible universe.
If not, how can you claim that "every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct".Please list the experiments that give a different answer.
Otherwise you have to accept that my contention- all the experiments say it's right- is true.
OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no to answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/10/2020 17:24:15
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?You have got an answer for this question.
In my answer I have stated that there is an error in the relativity formula due to missing components.
Those missing components are the base for the relativity formula error in infinity small scale and infinity large scale.
So, if you think that this is incorrect, then why you didn't answer my question:
Do you confirm that there are missing components in the relativity formula?Yes or no please!
I have offered several arguments why the BBT is absolutely none realistic theory:
1. Relativity - There are missing components in this formula
2. Dark matter - There is no evidence/observation for dark matter. Without dark energy we can't explain the orbital velocity in the spiral galaxy
3. Dark energy - There is no evidence/observation for dark energy. Without the dark energy we can't explain the requested negative gravity that is needed to boost the expansion at the very far end locations.
4. Negative mass - There is no evidence for negative mass. Without negative mass the idea of hawking radiation is just incorrect.
5. Magnetic field - Do you agree that without magnetic field there is no possibility to generate any sort of quark or particle.
In the following article it is stated:
https://earthsky.org/space/definition-what-is-dark-energy
"Dark energy is one of the great unsolved mysteries of cosmology. It is now thought to make up 68% of everything in the universe, with normal, so-called “baryonic” matter – every bit of matter we can actually see – comprising a mere 5%, with the rest consisting of dark matter, another huge cosmic mystery."
"The physics of dark energy are highly speculative. One idea which has gained ground in recent years is that dark energy resembles a force known as “quintessence,” which is a relative of the Higgs Field. But as yet there is no observational evidence to support or discount this"
I claim that there is no mystery in dark energy or dark matter as they both do not exist in our real Universe.
Without those imaginations/mysteries the BBT is totally none relevant theory.
It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it.If you really care to stamp nonsense and you don't care about the BBT (as you claim), then you must reject those kind of none realistic imaginations/mysteries as Dark matter and dark energy.
I'm just trying to stamp out nonsense like yours.
As "Dark energy, one of the great unsolved mysteries of cosmology" than at least, we all must agree that as long as there is no clear indication for those imaginations/unsolved mysteries of cosmology, the BBT should be considered as an IDEA and not as a Theory.
However, it is very clear to me that you have no interest in real science.
As you claim that "It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it", Then - please show us how could it be that you don't care about the BBT, while the mission of your life is defending the BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 17:32:59
You have got an answer for this question.The model universe about which I asked you did not contain any infinities.
In my answer I have stated that there is an error in the relativity formula due to missing components.
Those missing components are the base for the relativity formula error in infinity small scale and infinity large scale.
So, if you think that this is incorrect, then why you didn't answer my question:
So that can't be the reason you didn't answer.
So... yet again...
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:32:45
OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no to answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 17:33:53
the mission of your life is defending the BBT.It's not.
That's just silly.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/10/2020 17:44:17
It's not.Actually, I have better idea for our confused scientists with regards to those unsolved mysteries of cosmology that are called dark matter and dark energy
That's just silly.
Instead of using the word "dark" let's use "Abra Cadabra", "invisible power" or "Divine power".
This might be more realistic idea for the BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 18:10:23
Answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:39:16
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:32:45
OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no to answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/10/2020 04:21:32
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Well, we have already deeply discussed this issue.
Unfortunately, you clearly don't remember that.
So, let me tell you the following.
There is no problem with the night sky paradox as relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.
The missing components in the starting formula of relativity leads to those errors.
Therefore, in very small scale - THERE IS NO singularity in our universe.
Not for any BH and not even for the Big Bang itself.
In the same token, in very large scale - THRE IS NO curvature in our Universe.
Therefore, if we go all the way to the left we will stay at the left up to the infinity.
The idea that as we go to the left we might come from the right due to the curvature in our universe is totally incorrect.
Hence, the relativity velocity formula fails to work when it comes to a very far away space-time or location.
When galaxy at the very far end location is moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location, at some point (location & velocity) its light wouldn't get to us any more.
So, we get the light only from those galaxies that are located up to a distance D (assuming that at any direction there is the same correlation between velocity to distance...).
Hence, our real Universe is infinite while the location of light that we can still get is finite (D).
Therefore, if we could go to a galaxy that is located at 100BLY, One Trillion LY or even one Million of trillion LY away from us (at any direction) we would see there a similar space view as we see in our current location.
The CMB there would be identical and it would also carry the same Black body radiation.
However, at those far end locations we won't be able to get any light from the Milky Way galaxy.
Conclusion:
When we look at any direction, we all must agree that there are infinite galaxies up to the infinity in that single line direction. However, the light that we can get to our location from those galaxies is limited (D) based on distance/velocity of the galaxies. As we all know the further away the galaxy is located the faster away it is moving. Hence we can actually get the light only from limited no of galaxies (up to distance D) in that infinite long line.
Hence, although there are infinite galaxies in each line directions, we can get/observe the light only from a finite no of galaxies (up to D).
Therefore, there is no room for the night sky paradox.
Is it finally clear to you by now?
I hope that after jumping from point to point, you don't have an intention to do it again...
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?As you have got an answer, why do you keep asking the same question?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2020 08:34:51
As you have got an answer, why do you keep asking the same question?You have said a lot of things, but I don't believe you actually answered the question wich I asked.
The question was essentially.
Would the CMBR in that model universe look like the CMBR in our universe?
Please point out where you answered the question meaningfully by either saying "yes" or saying "no".
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2020 17:33:42
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/black-hole-star-space-tidal-disruption-event-telescope-b988845.html?fbclid=IwAR2tFSuTOcfo2tylgONNfqjhOJjZqIzRhoAKOoZmPzNwhdfJ8zYp4Sg0huo
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/10/2020 19:58:13
Would the CMBR in that model universe look like the CMBR in our universe?The CMB radiation perfectly fits/explained by theory D.
Please point out where you answered the question meaningfully by either saying "yes" or saying "no".
Please let me know if you see any contradiction
You may find reality to be informative.This is the biggest lie of our scientists
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/black-hole-star-space-tidal-disruption-event-telescope-b988845.html?fbclid=IwAR2tFSuTOcfo2tylgONNfqjhOJjZqIzRhoAKOoZmPzNwhdfJ8zYp4Sg0huo
In the article it is stated:
"Astronomers were able to see this one, named AT2019qiz, in better detail than ever before because it was detected soon after the star was torn to shreds."
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, or did they just find shreds as they have looked at AT2019qiz?
As they clearly claim that they only found shreds just after the star was torn apart, how do they know that there was any star there and how do they know that the shreds are due to in falling star?
Sorry, based on their explanation it is very clear that they ONLY found Shreds as they look at that AT2019qiz.
However, they are very sure that those shreds are due to "star that was torn to shreds"
So, as they didn't see any star how do they dare to lie and claim that: "Scientists have watched a rare blast of light from a star as it was eaten by a black hole."
I hope that it is just a mistake of those scientists that are eager to find in falling star while so far they couldn't find it in the whole Universe.
So, please let them know that they will never ever find any falling star in its way to the accretion disc of a BH or a SMBH.
This article shows how our scientists are ready to lie in order to prove their unrealistic theories.
This isn't science. It isn't even a science fiction. It is just a pure lie and misleading information.
If you really care about science, it's time for you to change the BBT disc.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2020 20:24:34
The CMB radiation perfectly fits/explained by theory D.I didn't ask about theory D.
Please let me know if you see any contradiction
I asked about the model universe I described.
Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?
What is the meaning of: "it was detected soon after the star was torn to shreds"?."Which word is giving you trouble?
Did 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"
from
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/1/482/5920142
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/10/2020 20:36:50
Where do you see in this message a proof for a detected star before it was torn to shreds?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:58:13Yes
Did they really see a star when it was a real star?
"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"
from
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/1/482/5920142
I asked about the model universe I described.Which model?
Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?
Please introduce your full model and ask a clear question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2020 21:53:03
Which model?The only one I introduced; the one you have been refusing to discuss.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 04:27:03
If I recall it correctly, you have only one Model - The BBT modelWhich model?The only one I introduced; the one you have been refusing to discuss.
Based on this model the Universe is finite.
However, after several unrealistic universe size selections, our scientists finely understood that at any selected size the whole BBT breaks down.
Therefore, they have decided not to decide.
In this case, no one could claim that the selected size is incorrect.
Bravo for our Scientists!!!
They also know that without dark matter and dark energy the whole BBT should be set in the garbage.
Unfortunately for them (and for you) – so far they couldn't find any evidence for those mystery imaginations
Even the idea of the inflation process is totally unrealistic.
Our scientists can't explain why it had stated at that specific moment and also why it had stopped at other specific moment.
Adding to that all the other difficulties as mass creation from energy without real source of electromagnetic shows that BBT it full with holes as a Swiss cheese.
Actually, in Swiss cheese there is at least some cheese between the holes, while in the BBT nothing could cover the infinite hole of that theory.
So, we have a "theory" with infinite hole which should cover a finite Universe without any idea about the size of this finite universe. However, we all should believe that BBT took place only 13.8 BY ago.
Sorry, this isn't science – This is pure imagination.
I keep asking myself – Why?
Why our scientists can't see that this theory is none realistic?
Why do they even lie and invent observations as in falling stars while they don't see any star?
Why they still hold this BBT story/theory while it contradicts the whole spectrum of real science?
Why they don't have any willing to consider other ideas/ theories?
Why do they keep the BBT as it was the holly crown of the science while it clearly doesn't have any connection to science?
So, what is the real story of the BBT.
As it is clearly not science – what is it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 08:24:44
If I recall it correctly, you have only one Model - The BBT modelThen read what I said, rather than relying on your plainly faulty memory.
You are failing to understand the difference between the BBT which is a real theory about how the actual Universe cme to be like it is and this "toy" model that I have been asking you about for over a week (and which you have been ignoring)
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?
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37
You are failing to understand the difference between the BBT which is a real theoryWell let me explain why the BBT is none realistic:
1.
Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years agoOK
2.
as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.This is the first imagination. Hot gas can't be formed from a bang. In order to have any sort of gas/particles, electromagnetism must be involved. The BBT has no way to set magnetic field. Therefore, if there was a bang, that bang can't create any sort of gas/particles.
3.
Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to formSame issue. without electromagnetic filed a gas/particle can't be transformed into atoms. So, it isn't an issue of temperature, it is 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.
4.
it was opaque.Ok - You can set it at opaque mode
5.
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).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 (as cavity) than the radiation at that moment should carry a BBR. Let's call this moment of time T1.
6.
And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.Well, the question is - what is about the opaque/universe environment? At the same moment that you eliminate the walls around the early universe - you lose the BBR for ever.
The idea that we get today a radiation that had been generated at a very specific time (T1) in the Universe life is absolutely none realistic. 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.
7. 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. The expansion process by itself can't decrease the temp due to the thermodynamics law. As you already stated that there is no space outside the current Universe, therefore, that heat can't escape outside the Universe.
Hence, the temp of the expanding Universe must be fixed even as the universe is expanding.
The only difference between small size to bigger size expanding universe is its density.
8.
What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come back (as there is some invisible walls/mirrors. Therefore, we should get all the radiation of the Universe. Hence, the Night sky should be full with light, almost identical to day sky.
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.
9.
I'm hoping you are not going to take another six months to answer that.I hope that finely you do understand the fatal errors in your unrealistic model.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Well let me explain why the BBT is none realistic:No.
This is you explaining that you do not understand physics.
Hot gas can't be formed from a bang.That's the stupidest thing anyone has said since teh Chinese discovered gunpowder centuries ago.
However, in this context the hot gas is formed from an even hotter plasma.
It's expanding and cooling.
electromagnetism must be involvedFortunately electromagnetism is present in my toy universe.
So that's no problem.
If EM were not allowed then there obviously wouldn't be any sort of radiation and I wouldn't have asked about it.
based on electromagnetic transformation.This seems to be bollocks you have made up.
Even if there was some imaginary magnetic field,Every proton and every electron carries a magnetic field, so there's no problem there.
we already know that it takes time to set the transformation of creating matter.That's more stuff you made up.
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.For a start, please learn the difference between non and none.
Non is a negation prefix none is a contraction of not one.
Interactions are known to take place much faster than microseconds.
There's a rule that the rate at which excited sates relax is proportional to the third power of the excitation energy.
Since ordinary light induced transitions can happen on nanosecond timescales, the very high energy stares in the early universe will do things much faster.
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.No; You have proved nothing but your own ignorance.
Ok - You can set it at opaque modeI don't have a choice, hot plasmas are opaque.
The BBR isn't an issue of temp.Yes it is, that's why a tungsten lamp emits BBR.
it is an issue of a radiation in a closed environment with walls around it as Cellar/Black box/oven or cavity.No it isn't.
That's why a tungsten lamp emits BBR.
If that opaque universe is considered as a closed environment with walls around itI invented this toy universe and it has no walls.
Well, the question is - what is about the opaque/universe environment?It became (much more) transparent.
At the same moment that you eliminate the walls around the early universe -It never had walls.
ou lose the BBR for ever.No, even if we were using your silly idea of walls that go away, the light that happened to be moving into the universe rather than out would have a whole universe to traverse before it "escaped".
Given the size of the Universe, that would take a while.
During the journey it will be stretched out by the expansion of the universe, so it's going to take a very long while, and arrive with a much longer wavelength.
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?There was radiation before but, because teh universe was opaque, it couldn't reach us.
There has been radiation since, and it does reach us- for example, sunlight.
But the light that was set free when most of opaque plasma of the electrons and protons combined to form transparent atoms of hydrogen is what we see today as the CMBR.
So, the idea that we get today a "ring of bell" from a very specific time of the Universe (T1) is just unrealistic.It's perfectly realistic, but it's clear that you don't understand it.
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 UniverseYes there is.
Work is done against gravity.
It's the same process which explains why mountain tops are cold.
Again, the issue here is that you do not understand basic physics.
Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come backNo
Because the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out.
There's obviously nothing for it to bounce off so there's obviously no way it would come back to us.
Therefore, a finite Universe that has no space around it MUST set the night sky paradox,Your paradox is imaginary.
It's just a consequence of you not understanding stuff.
while I have proved that a real infinite Universe has no problem with that.All you have proved is that you don't have a clue.
I hope that finely you do understand the fatal errors in your unrealistic model.You have yet to demonstrate any errors, fatal or otherwise.
Now, please answer the question.
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/10/2020 04:10:08
Thanks for your explanation.
We will discuss all of it.
However, let me start by the very first moment of time immediately after the Bang.
Since ordinary light induced transitions can happen on nanosecond timescales, the very high energy stares in the early universe will do things much faster.So, based on the BBT, the early universe starts with Ultra high energy.
Hence, do you confirm that immediately after the Big bang (let's say 10^-100 sec after the bang) there was no matter, only Ultra high energy?
If the answer is yes, then how any sort of EM could be created at that very first moment of time without matter?
As you agree that without EM, matter wouldn't be created, then it is your obligation to show how the EM had been created by that early Ultra high energy.
Let's move on to the baryogenesis -- baryonic matter At around t = 1 x 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
At 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/10/2020 08:53:08
As you agree that without EM, matter wouldn't be created,I never said I agreed with that, I said it was irrelevant.
And, thanks to QM variations in the field, it still is.
None of this could possibly be relevant anyway, even if you were right.
We are not (at the moment) discussing the real universe , we are discussing my toy one.
So, yet again...
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/10/2020 08:55:36
Let's move on to the baryogenesis -- baryonic matter At around t = 1 x 10^-35 seconds after the Big BangIf you actually knew about science you wouldn't waste time writing all that .
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
At 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.
As it stands, I can write it off in two letters, and make you look a fool.
QM
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/10/2020 03:41:15
Sorry those two letters shows that if there is a fool between us it is surly not me.Let's move on to the baryogenesis -- baryonic matter At around t = 1 x 10^-35 seconds after the Big BangIf you actually knew about science you wouldn't waste time writing all that .
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
At 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.
As it stands, I can write it off in two letters, and make you look a fool.
QM
The QM is not about matter creation or especially about pair production process.
It is very clear that you don't even try to read the article which I have offered.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
Please read it again:
In that article it is stated very clearly that any particle creation must start with particle pair as particle and antiparticle which also called matter and antimatter:
"During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter."
So, any sort of particle creation must start with matter and antimatter or particle with antiparticle which is also called "particle pair production" process.
We must understand how that pair particle process really works.
https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production
"one negative and the other positive (positron), from a pulse of electromagnetic energy traveling through matter, usually in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus."
So, we claerly see the impact of electromagnetic energy.
It is also stated:
"Pair production is a direct conversion of radiant energy to matter."
That statement is the highlight of any sort of matter creation or pair production (even if it took place at the baryogenesis era just after the Big bang)
So what is the real meaning of radiant energy?
https://www.britannica.com/science/radiant-energy
"Radiant energy, energy that is transferred by electromagnetic radiation, such as light, X-rays, gamma rays, and thermal radiation, which may be described in terms of either discrete packets of energy, called photons, or continuous electromagnetic waves. The conservation of energy law requires that the radiant energy absorbed or emitted by a system be included in the total energy."
Therefore, let's go back to the baryogenesis process moment and try to understand how the the universe could be filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter from the energy which had been given by the Big Bang.
So, let's assume that Bang had delivered all the requested energy to our Universe.
However, in order to convert that energy into matter/antimatter we clearly see that electromagnetic is involved.
Hence, Energy by itself would never ever be transformed into particle pair without the involvement of electromagnetic.
Therefore, without EM not even a single particle pair would be created by the Big bang process.
Hence, as our scientists do not claim for the existence of EM in the first moment after the Bang, then no matter/antimatter won't be created.
So, as the baryogenesis process can't start without EM, and as the QM can't help for that process, then we can set the BBT in the garbage at this point.
However, Just in case that you insist that this process is valid because you know that it must work, then lets continue:
Let's assume that somehow you can help the BBT in order to "conversion of radiant energy to matter" with or without the EM.
So, let's accept the idea that at 1*10^-35 of a sec after the bang, the early very compact universe is full with matter and antimatter.
However, it is stated:
"There was more matter than anti-matter, so while most particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, some particles survived."
Therefore, they are fully aware that any new created particle must be annihilated by a nearby antiparticle in that early compact Universe while there is no space outside.
However, as they also clearly know that any sort of particle creation must start by pair, than they also should know that the total number of particle should be absolutely identical to the number of antiparticle.
Therefore, based on what data they assume that "There was more matter than anti-matter"
This assumption proves that they don't understand the real meaning of "pair".
Based on Google translate: "Pair" - a set of two things used together or regarded as a unit."
Therefore
1+1 = 1+1 = 2
I hope that we all agree that there is no way to assume that:
1+1=3
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.
Therefore, after the annihilated process not even one particle would be survived.
Therefore, if you wish we can extend the BBT fiction to this point and just now set it in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2020 08:57:38
Sorry those two letters shows that if there is a fool between us it is surly not me.If you plan to call someone a fool, make sure you spell "surely" correctly.
r especially about pair production process.Yes it is.
It's just that you don't know enough physics to realise that.
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What 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.Just a quick reminder; that applies to your idea for the universe too.
If the BB can't make baryons, not can a black hole- for exactly the same reason.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/10/2020 16:17:38
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:41:15Yes it is.
r especially about pair production process..
So, you confirm that during baryogenesis, the universe filled with matter and anti-matter due to the pair production process.
I do appriciate your honest answer.
However, you should understand that the real meaning of "pair" - is one particle/matter plus one antiparticle/antimatter:
Based on Google translate: "Pair" - a set of two things used together or regarded as a unit."Hence, there is not even a chance of one to 10^100....0 that there will be one particle/matter more than antiparticle/antimatter.
Therefore
1+1 = 1+1 = 2
I hope that we all agree that there is no way to assume that:
1+1=3
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.
Therefore, after the annihilated process not even one particle would be survived.
Therefore, the following wish of our scientists is clearly incorrect:
"During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter."
In reality -
During baryogenesis, the universe filled with exactly
Therefore, as I have already stated:
after the annihilated process not even one particle would be survived.However, it seems that you know how the BBT physics really works:
It's just that you don't know enough physics to realise that.So, would you kindly advice how could it be that there will be more matter than antimatter?
If you can't explain it, then this theory should be set in the garbage.
However, if you still supporting that non realistic BBT, then it shows that you really don't care about real physics or science. You only care about the BBT (with or without science).
So, would you kindly let us know once and for all why do you keep supporting that non realistic theory?
Please - direct answer.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2020 17:16:09
However, 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...
And the point is that it applies to your idea of where particles come from.
So, it's just as much of a nail in the coffin of "Theory (actually guess) D" as it is of BB.
Now that you have successfully killed your own idea, you might as well answer this
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/10/2020 10:09:20
Now you confirm that for each particle that had been created by that pair production, an antiparticle must also be created.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:41:15Yes it is.
r especially about pair production process.
Hence, do you confirm that the total no of particles which had been created at the baryogenesis era are absolutely identical to the same no. of the antiparticles?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:17:38I have understood that for the last 4 decades or so...
However, you should understand that the real meaning of "pair" - is one particle/matter plus one antiparticle/antimatter:
Therefore, why our scientists claim that: "During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter."
Why isn't it clear to them and to you that: During baryogenesis, the universe filled with exactly equal amount of matter and anti-matter?
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.
If you can't offer any article that supports that this wrong wish, then as particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, not even a single particle could survive.
Hence, we have to agree that the BBT should be set in the garbage 10^-35 sec after it started!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2020 10:16:33
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.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?
You presumably recognise that, don't you?
Now, since it's not credible that you will actually explain that symmetry violation, you might as well ignore it for the time being and answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/10/2020 10:57:33
Do you understand that we are actually here?Agree, we are surly here.
We are matter.
Howevr, the unrealistic BBT theory isn't here.
So, while we don't know how it happenedAs you clearly don't know how it happend why do you claim that you know how it/BBT happened?
at some point in the past, some process must have produced more matter than antimatter?Sorry, this isn't a feasable process.
You have totally failed to show any articale which could support that unrealistic assumption..
Therefore, we all must agree that without this imagination wish/assumption, the BBT should be set in the garbage.
Once we agree on that, you have to tell us why do you insist to support that unrealistic BBT theory?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2020 11:41:43
Howevr, 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.
Do you understand that?
it/BBTTHEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Do you understand that?
Sorry, this isn't a feasable process.You have just said that the whole universe of matter is not feasible.
Did you mean that?
Do you not understand that, if it didn't happen, we would not be here?
Once we agree on that, you have to tell us why do you insist to support that unrealistic BBT theory?EXACTLY THE SAME MUST BE SAID OF THE IDEA THAT YOU KEEP MISLEADINGLY INSISTING ON CALLING "THEORY D".
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/10/2020 12:17:51
Well, by now we all agree that the BBT violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:57:33Your idea is also not here.
However, the unrealistic BBT theory isn't here.
It violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.
Therefore, not even a single particle could be survived after the annihilated process at the end of the baryogenesis era.
Now, after setting the BBT in the garbage of the science history, we can go on to theory D and verify if it really works while the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle is 100% correct.
If it can't work, then this theory also should be set in the garbage.
EXACTLY THE SAME MUST BE SAID OF THE IDEA THAT YOU KEEP MISLEADINGLY INSISTING ON CALLING "THEORY D".Same rules must be applied to any theory.
It doesn't matter if we call it BBT, theory D or Abra-Cadabra.
Any theory which violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle must be eliminated.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2020 12:22:40
We are made of matter particles.
So it's plainly true that something made more matter than antimatter.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/10/2020 12:27:37
We are here
We are made of matter particles.
So it's plainly true that something made more matter than antimatter.
Do you understand that?
No
We are here due to other theory that doesn't violate the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.
Our obligation is to find that real theory for our Universe.
Even if we agree that at some exotic situation, some particles could survive, it is clear that 99.9...9 had been eliminated.
So, if you insist to use the idea of mass creation based on a Big bang/small bang, you/we have to show how that 0.000..1 particles could set the whole Universe
Do you understand that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2020 12:40:17
Well, by now we all agree that the BBT violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.No, there's third option.
Therefore, not even a single particle could be survived after the annihilated process at the end of the baryogenesis er
The rule is not always strictly obeyed.
So, we have two choices.
either
(1) the rule is strictly obeyed- in which case matter can not exist because it would always be annihilated.
Or
(2) The rule is not strictly followed.
And we know that option 1 is wrong, because we are here- matter exists.
So we know that option 2 must be true.
And, since we know (because we are here) that the rule is sometimes violated, you can not use that rule to prove anything.
In particular I can't use it to show that "theory" D is false and you can't use it to show that BBT is false.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2020 12:41:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/10/2020 14:35:53
No, there's third option.
The rule is not always strictly obeyed.
So, we have two choices.
either
(1) the rule is strictly obeyed- in which case matter can not exist because it would always be annihilated.
Or
(2) The rule is not strictly followed.
And we know that option 1 is wrong, because we are here- matter exists.
So we know that option 2 must be true.
Actually, I fully agree with this explanation.
So, I'm ready to accept all of the following explanation about the starting point of the BBT:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
"During this phase, big bang theorists believe, matter and energy were inseparable. The four primary forces of the universe were also a united force."
"At t = 1 x 10-43 seconds, the universe was incredibly small, dense and hot. This homogenous area of the universe spanned a region of only 1 x 10-33 centimeters (3.9 x 10-34 inches)."
However, that moment of time must be considered as exotic moment.
Therefore, as I have stated:
Even if we agree that at some exotic situation, some particles could survive, it is clear that 99.9...9 had been eliminated.Hence, even if we accept option 2, it is very clear that the total particles which have been survived are quite limited.
So, if you insist to use the idea of mass creation based on a Big bang/small bang, you/we have to show how that 0.000..1 particles could set the whole Universe
Therefore at the maximal, the survival particles might represent 0.000...01 from the total particles/antiparticles which had been created.
I would assume that at the maximal those particles can't get more than the total particles in a single moon or star.
Hence, If we wish to believe that that those 0.00...01 survival particles could represent the whole matter in our entire Universe, then the energy at the first moment of the BBT should be 1*10^10...00 times the total energy/mass in our current entire Universe.
This is absolutely not realistic.
Therefore, do you agree that even if we all confirm your option 2, it can't lead us to the current universe that we see?
If you think differently, please let me know what should be the ratio of the survival particles with regards to all the created particles?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2020 15:29:07
it is very clear that the total particles which have been survived are quite limited.
You just made that up. It's a fairy story.
You have no actual reason to believe that the fraction is
0.000...01
Do you?
It might- in those circumstances be 0.5 and so you don't have a sensible, evidence based argument.
And there's still the fact that if the fraction is very small, then it's also very small for any other theory.
So it's just as bad for your idea as it is for the BBT.
Did you not see that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2020 15:29:24
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/10/2020 20:19:11
it is very clear that the total particles which have been survived are quite limited.
You just made that up. It's a fairy story.
You have no actual reason to believe that the fraction is0.000...01
Do you?
It might- in those circumstances be 0.5 and so you don't have a sensible, evidence based argument.
Well, you had confirmed that based on physics law/rule the total number of the particles should be absolutely identical to the Number of the antiparticles:
It violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.
Therefore, based on that rule the chance that there will be more particles than antiparticles is ZERO.
Not one to 10^10 and not one to 10^10...000
Zero is Zero.
However, you had convinced me that as we are here, there is a chance that due to some process which isn't full clear to us there might be a possibility that we can get more particles than antiparticles. So, that understanding is not based on any physics law, it is just a wishful thinking as we are already here.
So, I have agreed that maybe some particles had survived although the physics rule tells us that the chance for that is zero.
Now you take my understanding that some minor particles could survive and convert it to a chance of 0.5.
This is totally ridicules and unrealistic.
There is no way to bypass physics law/rule and if it happens the chance for that is virtually zero which means less than one to 10^10...00.
Therefore, the 0.5 which you had offered is absolutely not realistic.
By the way, just few hours ago I have watched a TV program about this issue.
In that program Lawrence Krauss have stated that the chance for that is less than one to one billion.
I have tried to find a confirmation for that and found the following:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/a-universe-from-nothing/
Also, we ("we" here being people, planets, galaxies, stars, and everything material) are the result of a slight asymmetry in the early Universe in which there was just a touch more matter than antimatter
So, it is very clear that just a touch more matter than antimatter can't be 0.5.
therefore, if we use the ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Kraus had used in the TV program, then the Big bang had to start with an energy which is higher by one billion times the total energy in out entire Universe.
Sorry,
It's the time for you and for all our scientists to understand that something might come out of nothing but surly not everything.
Therefore, the assumption that by a single bang we could get all the requested survival particles for our entire Universe is absolutely not realistic.
However as you won't get this message then please show the article which could confirm you understanding/hope for 0.5.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2020 20:34:47
Well, you had confirmed that based on physics law/rule the total number of the particles should be absolutely identical to the Number of the antiparticles:Except that it's not.
We are here.
There is no point discussing that rule any more because we know that it is not reliable.
Now you take my understanding that some minor particles could survive and convert it to a chance of 0.5And I would still like you to either prove that it isn't (in the circumstances that applied at the start of the universe)
Or accept that it might be 0.5 or some other fraction.
So, it is very clear that just a touch more matter than antimatter can't be 0.5.
therefore, if we use the ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Kraus had used in the TV program, then the Big bang had to start with an energy which is higher by one billion times the total energy in out entire Universe.
OK, you seem to like the idea that it's 1 in a billion.
But then you fail to understand what that means.
If all but 1 particle in a billion got annihilated, then that means that there should be two billion photons for each particle.
But we don't know what energy those photons have. (Because we can't be sure what the particles in the early universe were.)
They may have been radio frequency or infrared.
And so they might not have carried much energy at all.
So the energy at the outset might have been enough to produce the universe as we see it, and a little left over.
It really would be better if you learned some physics.
Also, try answering this
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/10/2020 06:19:46
There is no point discussing that rule any more because we know that it is not reliable.Well, as a person that raise the flag of science, you know that physics rules are always reliable.
So there is no way to bypass physics law/rule.
However, I still agree with you that we are here:
We are here.So, it is very clear to our scientists that if the Universe have to start by ONLY physics rule, it would never start and we were not here.
We might never know the exact physical process for the creation out of nothing.
We might never know how the first particle or the first mass in the whole empty Universe had been created.
We really don't know what is the source of energy that had started the whole process of the Big Bang.
We don't know why there should be more matter than antimatter
We even don't know for sure how that new created matter which were mass less have got their mass. That by itself is very complicated process. Some claim that it is due to Higgis Boson but as I have tried to have better understanding I found myself more confused.
So, in order to make it short - based on our current knowledge, we really don't know how the Universe had started out of Nothing.
So, if the Physics can't solve the mystery, it almost seems obvious that a divan force is involved in that first moment of creation.
Therefore, why can't we agree with the Christianity, all the other abrahamic religious and actually with any other religious that without the involvement of God we were not here?
Why the science community can't tell us clearly that a finger of God starts that first creation process and eventually gave us life?
Why do we insist so badly to understand that first moment, while we know that there is no way to bypass the physics law and we even don't have a clue about the real source of that first energy and how something could be created out of nothing?
Why the science community can't understand that God gave us in the first moment of creation the requested energy/matter/mass/forces... that were vital to start the physical activity which is needed for us to be here?
From this moment we have to use real Physics rules/laws to develop the theory for our Universe as the BBT or any other theory (as theory D).
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
Well, as a person that raise the flag of science, you know that physics rules are always reliable.Bollocks.
Everybody learns Ohm's law at school.
But a light bulb does not obey Ohm's law.
We know that Newton's laws of motion are broken at high speeds.
So a real scientist knows that the "laws" have a limited range of applicability.
It really would be better if you learned some science.
That way you could avoid making mistakes like that
And you wouldn't have wasted time typing the rest of your post.
I, on the other hand, know enough about science to realise there is no point reading the rest of your post because it is based on a misunderstanding of science.
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/10/2020 14:40:42
So a real scientist knows that the "laws" have a limited range of applicability.That is correct with any law that gives up some math components as space time or relativity.
Therefore, I fully agree with you that the relativity breaks down at extremely low space or extremely long distance.
However, there is nothing to break in the pair production process.
It will always generates matter and antimatter at the same quantity.
Therefore, the assumption of more matter should be set in the garbage.
So, Let's summarize why the BBT is totally unrealistic:
1. More matter than antimatter
The number of the created particles should be identical to the no of the antiparticles in the process of the pair production.
This is real physics. There is no other alternative. Therefore, after the annihilated process not even a single particle would survive. Hence, there are no particles to be used for our Universe. Hence, the BBT is not relevant.
2. The energy for the Big Bang
Until now our scientists couldn't show the real source for the BBT energy. Even if we agree that some particles survive in a ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Krauss had stated, then this first energy should carry at least one billion more energy than the total energy in our whole Universe. This is absolutely ridicules that all of that energy which equivalent for the energy of one Billion universes as ours would came out of nothing.
3. Magnetic field for the Pair production process
As I have already proved by real articles, the pair production works ONLY under magnetic field. Therefore, Even if you get for free the whole unrealistic energy that is equal to one billion of the total energy in our universe, not even a single particle pair would be created without the transformation of magnetic field. Our scientists do not claim for magnetic field, therefore, the theory that some matter/antimatter could be created by the big bang is also none realistic.
4. Singularity
Our scientists claim for singularity at the first moment of the Big Bang. However, when it comes to a NH or a SMBH, they are very sure that those BH would stay at their singularity shape forever and ever. Hence, there is no way for a matter in the singularity space to break outwards. If that is correct, then this should be applicable also for the BBT first moment. If some energy or even almost infinite energy) came out of nothing in a singularity point and set matter, that matter wouldn't be able to break out of that singularity never and ever.
Therefore, at the maximum, that Big Bang could create a BH or a SSSSupper massive BH.
5. Space expansion
Our scientists have totally failed to explain why there was no space before the bang and why only after the bang the space had started to expand. This must be supported by a specific physics law. How could we even assume that there was no space at the early time? Are we in a position to claim that there was no space before the Bang? do we have any way to prove it? If so, please show the articles and the math that supports the idea that there was no space before the Bang. That idea by itself contradicts the basic element of physics Time & space. If you take out the existence of time and space, then you actually kill the physics.
6. Inflation -
This is one of the biggest mysteries in the BBT. Even if we accept all the unrealistic five points that I had offered, then why suddenly the early Universe will expand at so high velocity (billion times the speed of light). We know there is no way to set a process without external energy. So, where the energy for the inflation came from. Even if we get that unrealistic energy for the inflation, why suddenly it stopped from billion times the speed of light to the speed of light or less? The momentum law would tell us that if something is move at a fixed velocity, it won't reduce its velocity without external force. So, what kind of force or energy could stop the inflation?
The idea of the inflation came by Alan Guth just in order to keep the BBT alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
Without the inflation the BBT is just useless:
"Guth's first step to developing his theory of inflation occurred at Cornell in 1978, when he attended a lecture by Robert Dicke about the flatness problem of the universe.[9] Dicke explained how the flatness problem showed that something significant was missing from the Big Bang theory at the time. The fate of the universe depended on its density. If the density of the universe was large enough, it would collapse into a singularity, and if the actual density of the matter in the cosmos was lower than the critical density, the universe would increasingly get much bigger."
Actually, the following explanation proves why the BBT and the inflation idea are totally irrelevant:
"Two weeks later, Guth heard colleagues discussing something called the horizon problem. The microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson appeared extremely uniform, with almost no variance. This seemed very paradoxical because when the radiation was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years. There was no time for one end of the cosmos to communicate with the other end, because energy cannot move faster than the speed of light. The paradox was resolved, as Guth soon realized, by the inflation theory. Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed, an amount so small that all parts would have been in touch[vague] with each other. The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken. The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."
Sorry - even if you wish to keep the life of the BBT, there is no way to accelerate the expansion in space (which by itself is not realistic) by billion times the speed of light and then stop it just because it is not needed any more. The Inflation is clearly unrealistic story.
The following message is also very interesting:
"Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed"
So, In order to set the inflation Alen Knew that it must start with less matter. At that time our scientists assume that our universe was very compact. Even so, Allen knew that the inflation can't carry all of that matter at billion times the speed of light. So, he hoped for less matter.
Now that we know that the universe is much bigger than our early estimation, we have to go back to the inflation idea and revivify if this idea is still applicable.
7. Infinite Universe
ONLY the idea of INFINITE universe could give a perfect explanation for the flat Universe!!!
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?We don't need that toy Universe.
Theory D meets perfectly all the aspects of our real universe without any need for any fiction story as expansion. inflation, dark matter dark energy and so on...
Please answer the following:
Why the science community can't understand that God gave us in the first moment of creation the requested energy/matter/mass/forces... that were vital to start the physical activity which is needed for us to be here?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:21:22
Therefore, the assumption of more matter should be set in the garbage.It isn't an "assumption" it is an observation.
You are suggesting that we put a fact in the garbage.
And that's not science, is it?
Again, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because it seemed to be derived from your misunderstanding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40
We don't need that toy Universe.Yes, we do.
It is just that you don't understand it, or you understand it but don't want to admit it.
Please answer the question.
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/10/2020 23:28:07
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/10/2020 19:36:22
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Well, you have already explained your toy Universe:
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.I have already gave you full answer why your toy universe is unrealistic.
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.
Please read « Reply #1023 on: 13/10/2020 16:47:37 »
You didn't like my answers, so let's focus on the main issues:
I totally reject that explanation due to the following:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37There was radiation before but, because teh universe was opaque, it couldn't reach us.
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?
There has been radiation since, and it does reach us- for example, sunlight.
But the light that was set free when most of opaque plasma of the electrons and protons combined to form transparent atoms of hydrogen is what we see today as the CMBR.
hot plasmas are opaque.We see today similar hot plasma at the accretion disc. That plasma has very powerful light radiation.
So, if hot plasma is opaque and we clearly see its radiation from so far away, then the hot plasma in the opaque early universe also should have high radiation. Therefore, the assumption that "the light that was set free when most of opaque plasma of the electrons and protons combined to form transparent atoms of hydrogen is what we see today as the CMBR" is just unrealistic.
Actually, based on the BBT, after the bang the matter was mass less. The meaning of that matter is radiation. So, based on the BBT process, the radiation was there from the first moment.
Don't forget that due to the inflation, the Universe had been expanded at velocity of Billions times the speed of light. So, technically, the light at the center of the bang couldn't get to the edge of that early universe.
However, after the inflation, the Universe expansion dropped dramatically. Actually, based on the formula it should be much less than the speed of light. Therefore, the light at the edge of the Universe was faster than the expansion. Hence, it had to bang with that edge.
So, your following message might not be fully incorrect:
The assumption that "the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out might be incorrect as we clearly know that the formula of the expansion is not based on the expansion of light.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37No
Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come back
Because the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out.
There's obviously nothing for it to bounce off so there's obviously no way it would come back to us.
If that was the case, than you have to invent other cosmological constant.
That shows how the BBT works. When you need a cosmological constant to explain one issue you set its value, while for other issue you don't even think about it.
Therefore, as you claim that the expansion was/is always at the speed of light - then please prove it by the chosen constant value (if you can..).
So, you confirm that there was radiation before and after that T1 time.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37There was radiation before but, because teh universe was opaque, it couldn't reach us.
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?
There has been radiation since, and it does reach us- for example, sunlight.
The idea that we get that ring of bell just from that specific time (T1) of the Universe is absolutely not realistic as even at the first moment after the bang there was already radiation in the Universe.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37It's perfectly realistic, but it's clear that you don't understand it.
So, the idea that we get today a "ring of bell" from a very specific time of the Universe (T1) is just unrealistic.
Now, can you please explain how at any location in the entire universe that same "ring of bell" from that early universe (t1) gets CONSTANTLY forever and ever.
Is there any possibility that at some point in the whole universe there will be different radiation?
Why the radiation after or before that time can't get to any place in the Universe. Why Only from that moment, to any location and forever and ever?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2020 20:03:44
You didn't like my answers, so let's focus on the main issues:The main issue was that you were wrong.
Actually, based on the BBT, after the bang the matter was mass less. The meaning of that matter is radiation. So, based on the BBT process, the radiation was there from the first moment.And, as the universe cooled, it formed matter- a plasma- which was opaque and trapped the primordial radiation, cooling it down to form BBR at about the temperature of hydrogen recombination.
That's why we don't see that primordial radiation.
Did you think you somehow had a point?
The assumption that "the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out might be incorrect as we clearly know that the formula of the expansion is not based on the expansion of light.It doesn't matter.
If that was the case, than you have to invent other cosmological constant.
That shows how the BBT works. When you need a cosmological constant to explain one issue you set its value, while for other issue you don't even think about it.
Therefore, as you claim that the expansion was/is always at the speed of light - then please prove it by the chosen constant value (if you can..).
The light emitted by the opaque plasma , just as it cooled enough to become transparent would set out in every direction, from everywhere.
That's why it's still reaching us.
So, you confirm that there was radiation before and after that T1 time.Nobody ever disputed it.
The idea that we get that ring of bell just from that specific time (T1) of the Universe is absolutely not realistic as even at the first moment after the bang there was already radiation in the Universe.Which got stopped in its tracks as matter formed.
Now, can you please explain how at any location in the entire universe that same "ring of bell" from that early universe (t1) gets CONSTANTLY forever and ever.It's everywhere because the BB happened "everywhere".
It's not constant forever.
If we had been looking at the CMBR a long time ago it would have been hotter.
But we were not in a position to study it until about 70 years ago.
70 years is a very small fraction of the age of the universe.
Is there any possibility that at some point in the whole universe there will be different radiation?It's not a matter of "possibly".
It is inevitable.
Nobody ever said otherwise.
Why the radiation after or before that time can't get to any place in the Universe.Before that moment, it couldn't get to us because the universe was opaque.
After that time it is getting to us; that's where the CMBR comes from.
Why Only from that moment, to any location and forever and ever?|Because that's the moment when the universe became transparent.
The big bang happened in all locations simultaneously.
It isn't "forever" because it keeps getting colder.
Now, I have repeatedly actually answered your question.
Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2020 20:05:32
If I were you, Bored Chemist, I would refuse to answer any further questions from Dave until he answers your question as well. Fair is fair, right?I might go for that.
Especially since he just asked the same questions 2 or 3 times in one post.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/10/2020 20:31:20
It's everywhere because the BB happened "everywhere".How can you think that is happened everywhere while our scientists claim that the BBT starts from singularity?
So how the BBT singularity could suddenly be converted to "everywhere"?
If it didn't start at singularity, then how the energy could start from a non singularity?
And, as the universe cooled, it formed matter- a plasma- which was opaque and trapped the primordial radiation, cooling it down to form BBR at about the temperature of hydrogen recombination.How do we know that?
That's why we don't see that primordial radiation.
1. How do we know that as the Universe cooled it formed matter? Did we set any simulation or verifications? Did we ever try to cool mass less matter in order to convert it to real mass as plasma?
Actually, plasma is the name that is given for the hotter gas in the Universe which is located at the SMBH accretion disc. Now you use that specific name for a cooler gas. Why is it?
2. How do we know that the plasma was opaque and trapped the primordial radiation? Did we set any simulation or verifications??
3. How do we know that the cooling plasma could form BBR at about the temperature of hydrogen recombination.
Again - did we set any simulation or verifications for that BBR?
Is there any possibility for quarks to be converted to real hydrogen just by cooling the temp?
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Why do you ask the same question again and again while you have clearly got full answer?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
If I were you, Bored Chemist, I would refuse to answer any further questions from Dave until he answers your question as well. Fair is fair, right?I have answered all his questions, but he insist to ask it again.
So, if we discuss about fair, then why don't you think that answers should be given for the following:
So, Let's summarize why the BBT is totally unrealistic:
1. More matter than antimatter
The number of the created particles should be identical to the no of the antiparticles in the process of the pair production.
This is real physics. There is no other alternative. Therefore, after the annihilated process not even a single particle would survive. Hence, there are no particles to be used for our Universe. Hence, the BBT is not relevant.
2. The energy for the Big Bang
Until now our scientists couldn't show the real source for the BBT energy. Even if we agree that some particles survive in a ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Krauss had stated, then this first energy should carry at least one billion more energy than the total energy in our whole Universe. This is absolutely ridicules that all of that energy which equivalent for the energy of one Billion universes as ours would came out of nothing.
3. Magnetic field for the Pair production process
As I have already proved by real articles, the pair production works ONLY under magnetic field. Therefore, Even if you get for free the whole unrealistic energy that is equal to one billion of the total energy in our universe, not even a single particle pair would be created without the transformation of magnetic field. Our scientists do not claim for magnetic field, therefore, the theory that some matter/antimatter could be created by the big bang is also none realistic.
4. Singularity
Our scientists claim for singularity at the first moment of the Big Bang. However, when it comes to a NH or a SMBH, they are very sure that those BH would stay at their singularity shape forever and ever. Hence, there is no way for a matter in the singularity space to break outwards. If that is correct, then this should be applicable also for the BBT first moment. If some energy or even almost infinite energy) came out of nothing in a singularity point and set matter, that matter wouldn't be able to break out of that singularity never and ever.
Therefore, at the maximum, that Big Bang could create a BH or a SSSSupper massive BH.
5. Space expansion
Our scientists have totally failed to explain why there was no space before the bang and why only after the bang the space had started to expand. This must be supported by a specific physics law. How could we even assume that there was no space at the early time? Are we in a position to claim that there was no space before the Bang? do we have any way to prove it? If so, please show the articles and the math that supports the idea that there was no space before the Bang. That idea by itself contradicts the basic element of physics Time & space. If you take out the existence of time and space, then you actually kill the physics.
6. Inflation -
This is one of the biggest mysteries in the BBT. Even if we accept all the unrealistic five points that I had offered, then why suddenly the early Universe will expand at so high velocity (billion times the speed of light). We know there is no way to set a process without external energy. So, where the energy for the inflation came from. Even if we get that unrealistic energy for the inflation, why suddenly it stopped from billion times the speed of light to the speed of light or less? The momentum law would tell us that if something is move at a fixed velocity, it won't reduce its velocity without external force. So, what kind of force or energy could stop the inflation?
The idea of the inflation came by Alan Guth just in order to keep the BBT alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
Without the inflation the BBT is just useless:
"Guth's first step to developing his theory of inflation occurred at Cornell in 1978, when he attended a lecture by Robert Dicke about the flatness problem of the universe.[9] Dicke explained how the flatness problem showed that something significant was missing from the Big Bang theory at the time. The fate of the universe depended on its density. If the density of the universe was large enough, it would collapse into a singularity, and if the actual density of the matter in the cosmos was lower than the critical density, the universe would increasingly get much bigger."
Actually, the following explanation proves why the BBT and the inflation idea are totally irrelevant:
"Two weeks later, Guth heard colleagues discussing something called the horizon problem. The microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson appeared extremely uniform, with almost no variance. This seemed very paradoxical because when the radiation was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years. There was no time for one end of the cosmos to communicate with the other end, because energy cannot move faster than the speed of light. The paradox was resolved, as Guth soon realized, by the inflation theory. Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed, an amount so small that all parts would have been in touch[vague] with each other. The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken. The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."
Sorry - even if you wish to keep the life of the BBT, there is no way to accelerate the expansion in space (which by itself is not realistic) by billion times the speed of light and then stop it just because it is not needed any more. The Inflation is clearly unrealistic story.
The following message is also very interesting:
"Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed"
So, In order to set the inflation Alen Knew that it must start with less matter. At that time our scientists assume that our universe was very compact. Even so, Allen knew that the inflation can't carry all of that matter at billion times the speed of light. So, he hoped for less matter.
Now that we know that the universe is much bigger than our early estimation, we have to go back to the inflation idea and revivify if this idea is still applicable
Actually, even at this moment I really can't understand why do you all have so high commitment for the BBT?
The BBT isn't just about science. It must be something high above science.
So, what is there in the BBT that you all wish to protect as it was a holly crown?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/10/2020 20:45:22
I have answered all his questions, but he insist to ask it again.No; you have not answered it.
It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).
Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Now, I should refuse to answer any of your questions until you answer that one of mine (with a yes or a no),.
But this mistake of yours is so massive that I really feel compelled to fix it, just in case it misleads anyone else.
How can you think that is happened everywhere while our scientists claim that the BBT starts from singularity?Did they say it finished as one?
Or did they say that it became everything?
So, all the matter in you was present at the big bang (it may have changed form)
All the matter in the moon was present at the BB,
All the matter in the furthest stars was present at the BB.
Everything , everywhere was present at the big bang.
And therefore the BB happened everywhere.
You really should find out about it before you try to criticise it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/10/2020 05:18:49
No; you have not answered it.
It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).
In order to answer your question with yes or no, I need to have better understand on your "Toy" universe.
Your introduction about the "Toy" universe was as follow:
You are failing to understand the difference between the BBT which is a real theory about how the actual Universe cme to be like it is and this "toy" model that I have been asking you about for over a week (and which you have been ignoring)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?
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
The issue is very simple:
You can set any starting points in your "Toy" Universe as you wish.
You can start it at any age/size as you wish and with any feature.
You can even claim that your Toy universe had started just one billion years ago while it already carried the BBR including, the Milky way galaxy & the solar system.
You can also claim that the energy for that toy Universe came out of nothing or direct deliver from the Bible.
However, once you set the starting point, then from this moment real science should take care.
So, please answer the following:
1. Size - What was the size of that Universe when it was started?
As you claim for "everywhere" instead of singularity point, then what was the size of that everywhere? If it is still singularity, then how singularity could be everywhere?
2. Energy - What is the source of energy for that Toy Universe?
How energy could come out of nowhere to everywhere and even set that everywhere to ultra high temp?
3. Temp -
What was the temp of the Universe at the first infinite moment of creation?
3. Matter
How a toy Universe with High temp (without any matter) could transform that temp to real mass just by cooling the temp.
Please explain how in real science a single particle could be created just with high temp (without EM).
This is something that you have to prove.
If you tell me that this toy had started full with plasma then this is OK for me.
However, if you claim that it started without any matter, then you have to prove the process of converting pure Temp/energy to plasma only by cooling the temp by real science - not story.
Please set the physics law that could support this imagination.
I'm not asking for the Math. Only simple physics law or simulation
4. Expansion - Do you confirm that without the expansion/inflation, the toy Universe would stay everywhere at that ultra high temp without cooling itself?
Do you also agree that without the expansion, the Universe acts as some singularity-everywhere Oven.
If so, I still can't understand why as you increase the size of that "Oven" you decrease the temp?
You have stated that toy Universe while there was no space outside. So, there is nothing outside that can cool that Universe.
So, please set the conservation energy law in order to prove that a Toy Universe without anything outside would cool itself as it expands.
5. Real Universe size/shape
What is the current real Universe size and shape?
Can you answer this question - Yes Or NO?
If you can, please set the answer.
If you don't know even its current size - Today, how do you know what was its size/shape/temp 14 BY ago?
Sorry - if you don't know EXACTLY the current size/shape of our Universe, then you don't know anything about our Universe!!! In this case, please set immediately your toy universe and the BBT in the garbage.
I should refuse to answer any of your questions until you answer that one of mine (with a yes or a no),.
It is a big bang shame for you and for the science comunity that you try to tell us what was the size of the universe 14 BY ago, while you clearly don't know its current real size/shape.
There is no meaning to answer yes or no, while all of you don't know even what is the current size of the Universe!
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2020 08:29:42
But, there's only one person I can ask about your opinion on this; so I will keep asking you.
No; you have not answered it.
It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/10/2020 20:03:44
Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/10/2020 20:15:06
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?It is really amazing.
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
You ask a question about your toy universe without giving basic information about its size and shape.
Not for its moment of creation and not for its current size.
It is similar as I will ask you the Following: If I will turn right do I get to LA (without giving any info about my current position)?
Yes or no?
If you want to get real answer to your toy universe, it is your obligation to offer the requested information.
However, unfortunately you can't offer this information as you clearly don't know.
Therefore, you are asking this question just to show that you know something while your knowledge about that universe is absolutely poor.
If you want answers to the questions you posed, learn some science.Do you mean that I should learn science from someone who doesn't know even the size of its toy Universe?
It's not my job to teach you.Sure, how can you teach while you don't know?
But, there's only one person I can ask about your opinion on this; so I will keep asking you.I have golden advice for you:
As long as you don't know - don't ask questions as people will know that you really don't know.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2020 20:38:42
However, unfortunately you can't offer this information as you clearly don't know.That's absurd.
I'm inventing this toy universe I "know" everything about it.
The shape is the first thing to clear up.
Obviously the expansion makes it spherical.
That's just you not thinking things through or being lazy.
Unlike the "If I will turn right do I get to LA" question (to which the answer is "Yes" by the way), the size of the universe doesn't matter much- you could have picked a value but, let's go with "the size of the real observable universe".
The advantage to that is that we don't need to argue so much about definitions.
If there are any other things you don't feel competent to make up for yourself, feel free to ask.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2020 20:39:59
Do you mean that I should learn science from someone who doesn't know even the size of its toy Universe?The interesting thing about science; it doesn't matter whom you learn it from. If it's science then it's science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/10/2020 21:32:26
the size of the universe doesn't matter much- you could have picked a value but, let's go with "the size of the real observable universe".
The size of the universe is very critical.
So, as it is your toy universe, than I agree - let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:
The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3
Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.
So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic. This also shows that the size of the universe is very critical.
Hence, when you have stated that:
the size of the universe doesn't matter muchThen it proves that you even don't know why it is mater!!!
The interesting thing about science; it doesn't matter whom you learn it from. If it's science then it's science.The interesting thing about science is that those scientists which raise the flag of science have no clue about the real size of our Universe.
As you and all the science community don't know even the basic information about the current size of our Universe, then how do you dare to claim that you know for sure what was its size 14 BY ago and how it really works?
If you really care about real science then go and find the real information about our current universe before you try to let us know how it had been created.
However, as you don't care about its current size, you clearly don't care about real science.
You only care about the BBT and I still don't understand why.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2020 22:25:47
But it is addressing the wrong question. (It's also wrong, but that's a different issue)
I didn't ask anything about how close to the edge you were.
I asked what the background would look like if you were deep in the middle of it (because if you weren't there wouldn't be "a" background).
So, yet again...
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:45:22
No; you have not answered it.
It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/10/2020 20:03:44
Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2020 22:29:56
So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.Do you understand why I'm calling it a "toy"?
What you have "proved" is something everyone but you already knew. You proved that a toy is not real.
Were you expecting a Nobel prize for that?
However, as you don't care about its current size, you clearly don't care about real science.I know enough about the science to know what the effect of the size is.
And I know that it does not greatly affect the outcome; it doesn't change the background radiation much- it only affects one parameter and that's easy to allow for.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2020 22:34:24
However, as you don't care about its current size, you clearly don't care about real science.I don't care much about the size of a toy.
Well, yes.
But that clearly has nothing to do with my views on science, does it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/10/2020 03:23:47
I have proved that a toy universe in the size of the observable Universe is not real.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:32:26Do you understand why I'm calling it a "toy"?
So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.
What you have "proved" is something everyone but you already knew. You proved that a toy is not real.
Therefore the assumption that our universe has a size as the observable Universe (of 92BLY) is clearly not real.
I do recall that just few years ago, our scientists were positively sure that this is the size of our current universe.
Now they clearly understand that it should be bigger.
However, they do not dare to say what is the updated size.
There is excellent reason for that.
They would have a severe problem to fit the BBT to any size of Universe.
If they would use high radius then we might ask how a universe with so big sphere could be evolved in only 13 BLY.
If they would use medium radius (but is should be above that 46 BLY) then they might find out that even this one is still too small for our real universe
Therefore, they don't give any number as they clearly know that any number might kill the BBT.
As they wish to protect that imagination which is called BBT, they have decided to skip that issue.
Therefore, the BBT is actually a theory for a Universe without real size.
Now we/our scientists try to find a Universe which might fit itself to this theory.
Were you expecting a Nobel prize for that?Yes, I'm waiting for the Noble prize.
However, the chance for that is less than zero.
Not because my discovery/theory is incorrect, but as those scientists that offer the Nobel Prize would give it ONLY to scientists that protect the BBT.
Sorry to let you down, you have no chance to convince them to give the Nobel prize to someone that proves that the BBT is "not real".
I know enough about the science to know what the effect of the size is.
And I know that it does not greatly affect the outcome; it doesn't change the background radiation much- it only affects one parameter and that's easy to allow for.
How could you claim such unrealistic statement?
Anyone who claims that the size (any size -even if it is airplane or Universe) "does not greatly affect the outcome" can't be considered as designer or scientist.
The Size is the MOST important issue in any design/theory or idea and in any aspect of our life.
When I need to design complicated electronic systems the first question is - what is the requested size.
Do we need to fit it in a room size, or in a pocket?
What would be the outcome if the designer would be requested to develop an engine to an airplane without knowing its size.
Is there any way that an engine for a Toy airplane would fit to the B747 jet?
it doesn't change the background radiation much- it only affects one parameter and that's easy to allow for.Any Universe size would have key impact on the Background radiation.
You don't know that. However, our scientists clearly know that.
Therefore they do not claim that the current universe which had been evolved from the BBT have that CMBR due to its current size/parameter but due to some activity that took place about 13 BY ago.
So, they estimate that without that "Ring of bell" that comes from the early specific Era as an echo, we won't get that CMBR that we observe today.
However they also know that this CMBR shouldn't be ejected out from the edge of the expanding Universe or be reflected back from that edge.
In this case, they clearly know that our Universe won't be able to maintain the requested CMBR (or ring of bell from) from that specific early time.
Therefore, you have stated that the Universe expands exactly at the speed of light.
However, we clearly know that at the far end of the Universe that we see, (up to about 13/14 BLY) the galaxies are moving away at accelerated velocities.
Therefore, as we move further away from our location, the galaxies should move faster and faster.
Without knowing the current size of the Universe, how could we know what is the velocity at the edge of the Universe?
How do we know that the edge of the Universe is moving exactly at the speed of light while we don't care about the size of the Universe?
I don't care much about the size of a toy.
Well, yes.
But that clearly has nothing to do with my views on science, does it?
You don't care about the size of our real universe as at any selected size we would have to kill the BBT.
Therefore, you have specifically used the example of the "toy" Universe.
So, you have no problem to kill the observable Toy Universe.
As long as you keep the BBT alive then it is perfectly ok for you and for all those scientists which call the BBT - science.
Starting from this moment we need to set the following distinguish between real science to your "views on science".
When it comes to BBT - please try to call it BBT understanding/idea/story/wish list or just imagination.
Please keep the word "science" only to real science law.
So, when you ask me to learn BBT "science", please ask to learn the BBT story.
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?You have clearly got the answer for that:
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.Is it clear to you by now, or do you wish to ask again and again the same question...
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/10/2020 12:18:00
I have proved that a toy universe in the size of the observable Universe is not real.No, you have not.
Firstly because you have proved nothing.
Secondly because... it's a toy... there was never any question of it being real, was there?
Anyone who claims that the size (any size -even if it is airplane or Universe) "does not greatly affect the outcome" can't be considered as designer or scientist.How could you claim such unrealistic statement?Because I can look at the data from yesterday
The universe has expanded since yesterday, but it still looks pretty much the same.
So I know that a change of size only affects it slightly. Lots of things may change but, they don't matter because I'm only asking you to look at one aspect of this toy- the background radiation.
And the size of the universe affects that in a very simple way.
What it will affect is the temperature of the CMBR. It will still correspond to BBR, but for a different temperature.
But, as I said, that's just one parameter, and we can allow for it.
Do you accept that?
You don't care about the size of our real universe as at any selected size we would have to kill the BBT.That's obviously wrong.
The BBT is not "killed" by the observation of the size of the universe.
On the contrary, it's largely because we know the size, that we know when there was a bang,
It's interesting that you say this
"Starting from this moment we need to set the following distinguish between real science to your "views on science"."
So, for example, things that say the conservation laws are being broken in this universe at the moment are wrong and should be discarded.
We need to distinguish "theory D" from real science ,because "Theory D" requires (among other things) a break in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago.
It also requires that we ignore Olber's paradox- which showed that "theory D" was wrong even longer ago.
So, when you ask me to learn BBT "science", please ask to learn the BBT story.This "BBT" science is a figment of your imagination.
There is nothing in the BBT which is inconsistent with the lobserved laws of nature.
(This plainly distinguishes it from "Theory D" which requires that we ignore conservation laws.)
You have clearly got the answer for that:OK, to be fair, you did sort of answer the question.
I missed it because you buried it in some irrelevant stuff.
You finally, after several weeks, answered the question.
In that toy universe (as long as you were not too near the "edge") you would see a background radiation that looks like the one we see in the night sky.
But, according to you, that's impossible.
That's the foundation of "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.
The CMBR would look exactly the same in my toy universe that is finite in age and finite in size.
So, I presume you will now accept that your starting point for "Theory D" is wrong,
and that it's wrong anyway because it requires a breach of the laws of physics and- as you say.
Starting from this moment we need to set the following distinguish between real science to your "views on science".The BBT is science and "Theory D" is based on something that you now accept is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/10/2020 17:29:34
Because I can look at the data from yesterdayIf you can look at the data from yesterday, why you can't look at the data from today?
Please - What is the current size of our Universe???
The universe has expanded since yesterday, but it still looks pretty much the same.How could it be that the expanding universe would look the same at any given moment?
Actually, due to the expansion, at some point of time we wouldn't see any other galaxy in the whole visible Universe.
So, do you mean that even if we don't see any galaxy, the universe still looks the same?
That's obviously wrong.How could it be that you know for sure when there was a bang and what was the size of the Universe at that bang, while you have no clue about its current size?
The BBT is not "killed" by the observation of the size of the universe.
On the contrary, it's largely because we know the size, that we know when there was a bang,
Do you still call it science?
Sorry - can you please answer what is the current size of the Universe?
Yes Or No?
If yes - please set the number!
However, do you agree that if we would find (today or in the future) that this number is incorrect, then the whole BBT would be set in the garbage?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2020 17:52:39
Sorry - can you please answer what is the current size of the Universe?about 93 billion light-years
Yes Or No?
If yes - please set the number!
You do know that you could have googled that, don't you?
Now, let's see you address the fact that your recent post contradicts your first post- the one in which you set the foundations of "theory D"
However, do you agree that if we would find (today or in the future) that this number is incorrect, then the whole BBT would be set in the garbage?Obviously, no.
The size of the universe is changing so the size will be different tomorrow.
How could it be that the expanding universe would look the same at any given moment?Because I was focussing on the BBR. Sure, the galaxies and stuff change, stars come and go etc.
But the thing that we were actually talking about (and it was you who raised it- in the first lines of this thread) is teh CMBR and that doesn't change much; it just gets cooler as the universe gets older.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/10/2020 18:00:43
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:23:47OK, to be fair, you did sort of answer the question.
You have clearly got the answer for that:
I missed it because you buried it in some irrelevant stuff.
You finally, after several weeks, answered the question.
Thanks
Do appreciate you honest approach.
about 93 billion light-yearsI have already proved by very simple Math that this size is not realistic.
You do know that you could have googled that, don't you?
You even agree with me.
So, if this is your No, then please set the BBT in the garbage.
Now, let's see you address the fact that your recent post contradicts your first post- the one in which you set the foundations of "theory D"
So, I presume you will now accept that your starting point for "Theory D" is wrong,
and that it's wrong anyway because it requires a breach of the laws of physics and- as you say.
"Theory D" requires (among other things) a break in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago.
It also requires that we ignore Olber's paradox- which showed that "theory D" was wrong even longer ago.
So, theory D starts with the same concept as the BBT.
If the BBT can set an energy and convert it to matter, why theory D can't use the same idea?
Do you have some royalty on the BBT ideas?
However, Theory D only needs one BH due to that bang. No more that that.
So, would you kindly explain why theory D "breaks in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago" while BBT doesn't break it?
Olber's paradox- I have already explained that this paradox is unrealistic due to the orbital velocity of the far end galaxies.
We clearly see that as the galaxy is located further away it is moving much faster away.
Therefore, at some distance, those far way galaxies must move away faster than the seed of light.
At that moment, the Olber's paradox die.
As they clearly move away faster than the speed of light then
So, I presume you will now accept that your starting point for "Theory D" is wrong,Theory D starts with clear estimation of size and edge.
and that it's wrong anyway because it requires a breach of the laws of physics and- as you say.
You can agree with it or disagree.
But at least we all know about it.
If you can prove that it couldn't be infinite in its size and in its age, than this theory should be set in the garbage.
This is very clear to me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2020 18:21:25
You even agree with me.No I didn't.
If you think I did, please post a quote so I can explain either that you misunderstood or that I mistyped something.
If the BBT can set an energy and convert it to matter, why theory D can't use the same idea?Matter/ energy interconversion isn't the problem.
So, would you kindly explain why theory D "breaks in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago" while BBT doesn't break it?The proof of energy/ mass conservation is derived from a symmetry of the universe- specifically that the universe is symmetrical in time.
At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.
But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.
This was already explained to you.
So, theory D starts with the same concept as the BBT.According to you, "Theory D" starts with something which, according to you, is not true.
You need to fix that or ditch it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/10/2020 19:55:56
please post a quote so I can explain either that you misunderstood or that I mistyped something.My explanation was as follow:
The size of the universe is very critical.
So, as it is your toy universe, than I agree - let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:
The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3
Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.
So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic. This also shows that the size of the universe is very critical.
Well, I have proved that a Universe in a size of 92 BLY is not real.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 22/10/2020 21:32:26Do you understand why I'm calling it a "toy"?
So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.
What you have "proved" is something everyone but you already knew. You proved that a toy is not real.
You can call it toy or observable. At that size the chance that we will be close to the edge is more than 70%.
Therefore, if our real universe was 92 or 93 BLY, the chance that we would be close to the edge is more than 70%.
Therefore, do you agree by now that the observabale Universe at 93 BLY is not real?
The proof of energy/ mass conservation is derived from a symmetry of the universe- specifically that the universe is symmetrical in time.OK
At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.
So, BBT and theory D could start with a bang.
However, in the BBT all the matter/energy of the whole Universe must be created, while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.
But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.The creation of new matter by that tiny BH is not due to spontaneous generation.
This was already explained to you.
It is due to gravity force and EM.
I have deeply explained this issue.
According to you, "Theory D" starts with something which, according to you, is not true.I accept the idea that something could be created out of Nothing, but that something can't be everything (as we even call it something..)
You need to fix that or ditch it.
It could be a Tiny BH or a massive BH, but it surly can't be the whole matter/energy in the entire Universe.
This idea is absolutly not realistic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2020 20:26:38
Post a quote of something I said that led you to the inaccurate conclusion that
"
You even agree with me.
Because, what I actually said was
That is an interesting analysis .
But it is addressing the wrong question. (It's also wrong, but that's a different issue)
Why did you think I was agreeing with you when I said
It's also wrong,?
Well, I have proved that a Universe in a size of 92 BLY is not real.No.
You have not.
When you said you had I explained that you were wrong.
while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.No, it is not.
As we have explained.
Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.
You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".
This was pointed out to you before.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?
It could be a Tiny BH or a massive BH, but it surly can't be the whole matter/energy in the entire Universe.That is still a logical fallacy.
This idea is absolutely not realistic.
That was pointed out before
You keep repeating the same mistakes.
WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/10/2020 02:44:43
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Post a quote of something I said that led you to the inaccurate conclusion that
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Why is it so important if we call that Universe a Toy Universe, observable Universe or even BC Universe?
I have set the Math on the size of the Observable Universe - 92BLY.
So, please confirm the following:
If we were living in a Universe with a size of 92 BLY, the chance for us to be located close to the edge (up to 12 BLY) is more than 70%.
Let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:
The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3
Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.
Yes or No?
If yes, then it's time for you to set the BBT and the observable Universe size in the garbage!
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/10/2020 03:13:36
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:55:56No, it is not.
while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.
As we have explained.
Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.
You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".
This was pointed out to you before.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?
Let me remind you:
Theory D doesn't break any physical law.
We all agree that the first object after the Bang could be created out of Nothing.
Based on the BBT, that object had set the whole matter in the entire Universe including all the stars, BHs, Rotatable BHs, SMBHs, Magnatars, Pulsars and galaxies.
Based on theory D we only need to have one single object as tiny BH or actually a Tiny rotatable BH to set the whole Universe.
So, let's assume that after the Big Bang we have got the first rotatable BH in the Universe.
I hope that you agree that this kind of BH has the ability to generate Electromagnetic field.
Now do you agree that due to its EM and gravity, it can generate new particle pairs (Both with positive mass and negative polarity)?
Once you agree with that, you should understand why new particles could be created by that rotatable BH without any science law violation.
Those particales would be used to form new starts and new rotatable BH which would set after long enough time our infinite Universe.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 08:59:29
Let me remind you:Yes it does.
Theory D doesn't break any physical law.
We all agree that the first object after the Bang could be created out of Nothing.No
After the bang was created by the bang.
The bang was created from nothing.
It may seem trivial but it is very important, that's why I'm explaining it to you for (at least) the third time.
Why is it so important if we call that Universe a Toy Universe, observable Universe or even BC Universe?Because , even if it's entirely hypothetical, it shows that the first two lines of your thread are wrong.
It does not have to exist to do that.
It's a thought experiment.
Do you understand that?
Yes or No?No.
But you are wrong anyway.
If you look at a distant black wall on a foggy day, you don't see the wall, you see the fog.
If you look at the edge of the universe, you don't see the edge, you see the CMBR.
Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.
That's not zero.
So you have not proved that it is wrong.
Now do you agree that due to its EM and gravity, it can generate new particle pairs (Both with positive mass and negative polarity)?Until it evaporates, yes.
It will then have produced particles equal to its own mass and the process stops.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?I remember us pointing out that it was wrong.
Had you forgotten that?
WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/10/2020 14:33:45
Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.How could you claim that the math is incorrect?
That's not zero.
So you have not proved that it is wrong.
That answer by itself shows that your knowledge in basic Math is very poor.
Please see again the calculation:
Let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:
The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3
Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.
So, if you can't set that basic math, how could you dare to ask me the following?
WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?
It's better for you to learn some basic math and real science before you shows that your knowledge is so poor.
In any case, as my math is correct by 100% then it shows that the chance for the BBT to be correct is less than 30% while the chance for it to be incorrect is more than 70%.
So, if you set your trust in a theory which has 70% to be incorrect, then I would advise you to go and learn Math and real science (not that science fiction that we call BBT) and just then come back.
So, with or without your confirmation, it is very clear that our real Universe must be much bigger than this compact imagination of only 92 BLY.
Therefore, it's the correct time to set that BBT in the garbage once and for all.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 15:02:32
The problem is that you don't understand that the volumes of bits of spheres you have calculated do not correspond to the BBT model.
It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.
You are presenting that classical physics applies, and it does not.
However, as I said; even if you were right, you would still be wrong.
If you look at a distant black wall on a foggy day, you don't see the wall, you see the fog.
If you look at the edge of the universe, you don't see the edge, you see the CMBR.
And, even if that wasn't enough to kill your idea, there's still this.
Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.
That's not zero.
So you have not proved that it is wrong.
So, if you can't set that basic math, how could you dare to ask me the following?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:59:29
WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?
Because...
At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.
But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.
This was already explained to you.
As we have explained.
Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.
You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".
This was pointed out to you before.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 29/09/2020 03:53:25Why should I bother?[/quote]
please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/10/2020 05:27:40No, you didn't
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.
You just pointed out that you don't understand that the accretion disk would form around the "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in.
It also overlooks the obvious fact that the stars that fell in were previously part of the milky way.
Those stars are in orbit round the galaxy. So they are already lined up pretty nearly into one plane of rotation.[/quote]
And so on.
Every time we tell you something, you ignore it.
I told you that you had done the wrong maths.
But you ignored it.
That's why I say that you should learn stuff, so...
WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/10/2020 16:12:26
It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then lease offer the correct math.
So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
Sure the correct maths is thisIt's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then lease offer the correct math.
So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.
"By inspection; not zero".
Now, can you get back to addressing the fact that- regardless of any problems that may exist with the BBT, you disagree with yourself about the foundation of "Theory D"
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).
You said
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.
but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.
So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/10/2020 19:47:41
Well, I'm quite sure that you know that the math is correct.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:26Sure the correct maths is this
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 15:02:32
It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.
As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then please offer the correct math.
So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.
"By inspection; not zero".
However, you reject it as it proves that the BBT is useless.
Once we agree with that we will move on.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).
You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.
but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.
So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/10/2020 04:32:58
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).This forum and this thread is all about real science.
When we discuss about any subject as the size of the Universe we must find the ultimate correct size for our universe.
It is not an issue for Theory D or BBT.
However, in order to verify what is the correct size, we must look at different theories and verify the impact of each theory on that size.
So, it is our obligation to set the expected different sizes of any theory and verify which one might be the correct one.
Hence, our mission isn't to kill the BBT or theory D, but to find the "The Ultimate Theory for the Universe"
Theory D is just a name. We could also call it BBT v2.
So, if your mission is to find "The Ultimate Theory for the Universe" then we must work together in order to see which one might offer the correct size for our Universe.
If your mission is just to keep the BBT and kill any other theory, then you are doing excellent job.
I would recommend the Nobel prize Council (which should be called the BBT Council) to offer you the highest reward for your excellent job for keeping that BBT alive.
Therefore, real science isn't part of your mission, it is all about BBT and only BBT.
However, it is part of my mission.
For quite long time I was wondering how anyone with basic science knowledge could even consider that the BBT is correct.
Now I understand that most of you know that it is clearly incorrect, but you do whatever it takes to protect it.
So, I have no intention to convince you personally that the BBT is wrong as you already know that.
My intention was to focus only on real science.
However, you would do whatever it takes to protect the BBT and kill any other theory which could replace it.
Hence, you don't care about real science - you only care about BBT as it represents for you the real meaning for real science.
Therefore, you give yourself a freedom to use any sort of misleading information in order to protect the BBT.
As a person that claims for deep knowledge in science, you must have some understanding in basic statistic math.
If you were teacher in elementary school, and question was as follow:
"Let's assume that you are located in a ball sphere shape with a radius of 46m.
What is the chance to be located at a maximal distance of 12 m from the edge of the sphere."
It is very clear to me that you would expect to get an answer that the chance for that is over than 70%.
Any student that claims the following answer:
the correct maths is this "By inspection; not zero".Would be requested by you to bring its parents immediately.
Hence, Based on the BBT our chance to be located near the edge of the observable Universe is over than 70%.
This is very clear to you!!!
However, you reject it as it could negatively affect the BBT which you must so badly to protect.
Therefore, your real mission is to protect the BBT and you would use any incorrect and misleading information to confuse the other party.
I really wonder how it could be that even Kryptid protect your approach.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09
Theory D is just a name.It is an inaccurate name too, because it's not a theory.
As a person that claims for deep knowledge in science, you must have some understanding in basic statistic math.
If you were teacher in elementary school, and question was as follow:
"Let's assume that you are located in a ball sphere shape with a radius of 46m.
What is the chance to be located at a maximal distance of 12 m from the edge of the sphere."
It is very clear to me that you would expect to get an answer that the chance for that is over than 70%.
Imagine that the teacher said that he thought the answer was zero.
Wouldn't it be right for me (or any other pupil) to say "I don't know- or care- what the actual answer is, but it is clearly not zero. You are saying something stupid"?
Well, that's what I am doing.
You are saying it's got a 30% chance of happening and so it is impossible.
And I am saying that 30% is not zero.
It's time for the parents to complain to the headmaster about the teaching.
So, once again
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).
You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.
but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.
So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
Post by: pzkpfw on 27/10/2020 18:58:33
Dave Lev is as usual arguing against his own misconceptions, not current science.
(Dave Lev, you never answered my question about whether you thought gravity assist ("slingshot") was literally "free".)
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/10/2020 07:34:55
How is "edge of the observable Universe" supposed to make any sense in the first place?Let's assume that we are located near the edge of the Universe. What should we see?
Don't you agree that we would clearly see that in one side the sky is full with galaxies while in the other it is almost empty?
Dave Lev is as usual arguing against his own misconceptions, not current science.Would you kindly give an example.
(Dave Lev, you never answered my question about whether you thought gravity assist ("slingshot") was literally "free".)I do not recall that question. Please set it again.
magine that the teacher said that he thought the answer was zero.Well, if the teacher has a basic knowledge in statistics he would know that kind of answer should be stay in your imagination.
Sorry for my example – even if your answer is technically correct, It is very clear that you are not qualify for been teacher.
You are saying it's got a 30% chance of happening and so it is impossible.If you accept that the chance not to be near the edge of the Observable universe (from Zero to 34 BLY) is less than 30%, then you have to agree that the chance to be near the edge is over then 70%.
So, you also have to agree that the chance that the BBT is correct is 30% while the chance that it is incorrect is 70%.
Therefore, I agree that 30% is higher than zero, however - A theory which has a chance of 70% to be incorrect should be set in the Garbage long time ago.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2020 08:50:15
It is very clear that you are not qualify for been teacher.I kept on explaining something until you understood it.
That means I am your teacher.
Would you kindly give an example.
Let me remind you:
Theory D doesn't break any physical law.
We all know it breaks the conservation laws.
Therefore, I agree that 30% is higher than zero,It took nearly a week for you to accept that. A school pupil would have spotted it sooner.
And, since it is a calculation about "the edge of the universe" - which does not really exist- it is "the wrong maths"- as I told you repeatedly. (again; you would not listen).
Do you see that it is you who is so passionate in defence of your idea that you can not see the truth? It's not that I'm obsessed with the BBT, it's that you are obsessed with "theory D"- you even get upset when people explain that it isn't a theory.
"Theory D" should be put with the other garbage.
If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address this
So, once again
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).
You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.
but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.
So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
Post by: pzkpfw on 28/10/2020 22:52:30
Let's assume that we are located near the edge of the Universe. What should we see?
Don't you agree that we would clearly see that in one side the sky is full with galaxies while in the other it is almost empty?
No!
That's a perfect example of where you seem to have no idea at all what current scientific thinking is.
Wherever I am in the Universe, even at the edge of what we currently can observe, I'd be at the centre of my own observable part of the Universe.
You presumably think of "space" as something like an endless simple three dimensional void in which the BB occurred and which has resulted in a sphere of "stuff" that has an edge in that void.
Whatever the topology and size of the Universe, current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded. I expect you won't like that but that's a different issue.
(
On the question:
See: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607830#msg607830
This was when the thread topic was mostly your idea that black holes are somehow an endless energy source.
)
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/10/2020 15:37:57
Whatever the topology and size of the Universe, current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded. I expect you won't like that but that's a different issue.Wow
Thank you for this important information!!!
So you claim that the "current thinking" is that the Universe is unbounded.
The meaning of unbounded is unlimited.
So, if I understand you correctly, the current thinking of our scientists is that the Universe is Unlimited.
That is the most important message that I have got so far!!!
Where have you been???
I was waiting for you for too long time.
How could you even consider that I wouldn't like it?
Few questions:
1. Current thinking - When this current thinking took place? In other words, when our scientists have finely understood that our Universe must be unlimited?
Did it take pace yesterday, last month or just year?
Just for your information, I know it for the last 12 Years.
2. Infinite - Yes, Your message is perfect
In short, it's either infiniteSo, it is very clear that unlimited universe means infinite Universe.
Therefore, in my first message about theory D I have stated that the Universe must be infinite.
3. Finite but unbounded-
or finite but unboundedHow a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?
Based on Google translate the meaning of finite is "limited". Not unlimited but Limited!!!
So, how could it be that a "finite" Universe which means "limited" Universe could suddenly be transformed to unlimited Universe?
Therefore, if the radius of the Universe is only 46 BLY, how could it be that if we stay exactly at the edge/end of that radius (at the 46BLY from the center), we should still see unlimited universe?
How do you do that magic???
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 16:08:22
So you claim that the "current thinking" is that the Universe is unbounded.No; he didn't.
The meaning of unbounded is unlimited.No, it isn't.
So, if I understand you correctly...No, you don't.
How could you even consider that I wouldn't like it?Because it says the exact opposite of what you have said.
Unfortunately, you are so blinded by your support for you idea, that you can't see this.
How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?OK, so, you have worked out that you don't understand it.
Based on Google translate the meaning of finite is "limited". Not unlimited but Limited!!!
Why not take his word for it when he says "
I expect you won't like that?
If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09
So, once again
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).
You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.
but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.
So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 16:10:33
How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?If you had done your homework, you would know this.
But you didn't even bother to find out what the current model of the universe is before claiming to have proved that it is wrong.
Post by: pzkpfw on 29/10/2020 18:57:11
How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?If you had done your homework, you would know this.
But you didn't even bother to find out what the current model of the universe is before claiming to have proved that it is wrong.
Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!
Don't know how you find the energy Bored chemist, but I appreciate your posts in this thread.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 19:00:50
Don't know how you find the energy Bored chemist,A combination of monumental bloodymindedness, and the desire to see that nonsense doesn't get the last word on science sites.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/10/2020 20:13:22
Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!You have just proved that you can't even backup your own message.
Why do you suddenly contradicts yourself?
What was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is either infinite or finite but unbounded?
current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Could it be that based on your personal approach - the real meaning of what you say is the opposite of what you say?
So, what was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite or finite but unbounded"?
As you and BC claim for deep knowledge in science - How a Universe in your science imagination could be finite but unbounded?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 20:17:19
What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?
Post by: pzkpfw on 29/10/2020 20:20:27
Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!You have just proved that you can't even backup your own message.
Why do you suddenly contradicts yourself?
What was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is either infinite or finite but unbounded?current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Could it be that based on your personal approach - the real meaning of what you say is the opposite of what you say?
So, what was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite or finite but unbounded"?
I'm not interested in discussing the size or shape of the Universe with you. I've seen that's pointless.
I was mostly interested in pointing out that you don't know the science you are arguing against. (You pick and choose what science you accept, and build long chains of reasoning based on your own ideas, but portrayed as though they are obvious and accepted.)
(Edit: That was also my intent with the question here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607830#msg607830 )
There is no edge to the Universe. Your personal view is that there is, but that's not current science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 20:28:16
Have you done your homework yet?
What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/10/2020 06:13:56
It is very clear that your intention is to support BC with his mission to prove that whatever I say is incorrect.
However, you fail again and again in this mission.
First you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded":
current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Now you claim that the Universe has no edge:
There is no edge to the Universe
Don't you understand that those kinds of messages fully support Dave Lee' Theory?
How could you do that to BC?
It's time for you to adopt BC approach.
Never offer any sort of information which might show that the BBT is incorrect or Theory D is correct..
Never, ever!!!
You must learn from BC how to offer misleading information in order to confuse the other party.
Now it seems that you start to understand your main mission:
Therefore, the following answers prove that you improve yourself:
I was mostly interested in pointing out that you don't know the science you are arguing against. (You pick and choose what science you accept, and build long chains of reasoning based on your own ideas, but portrayed as though they are obvious and accepted.)
You also understand now that you shouldn't discuss about the size of the Universe as that discussion should kill the BBT.
So the following answer is perfectly OK for BC:
I'm not interested in discussing the size or shape of the Universe with you. I've seen that's pointless.
However, you still must improve your answers.
You must learn how to answer from the master. Therefore, please read carefully BC answers and learn his great tactics in confusing the other party.
Let me help you with few key points that BC is using:
1. Try to jump from subject to subject in order to confuse the other party
2. Try to offer a question and then immediately repeat that question again and again in order to freeze the other party from moving on in its explanation.
3.Try to say "No" as many times as you can.
Just few examples from the master:
No; he didn't.
No, it isn't.
No, you don't.
4. Never ever offer any sort of information (or relevant article) to the other party as he might use it against the BBT.
Therefore, it was really big mistake for you to offer that last message:
There is no edge to the Universe5.. Answer a question with a question. As an example from the master:
Have you done your homework yet?6. The BBT is the real science - anything else is none relevant.
What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?
7. Use the highlight of BC approach - Try to focus of the other party personality and inability to accept the BBT as "real science". Tell him again and again that he has no knowledge in science. If you all would repeat that message, there is a good chance that he would start to believe in that.
As an example:
A combination of monumental bloodymindedness, and the desire to see that nonsense doesn't get the last word on science sites.
So, is it clear to you by now how you should answer to the Dave Lee and how you should confuse him?
Please, from now on you shouldn't use any information which supports his theory. It the last time that you offer a message like that:
There is no edge to the Universe
There are many other BC' excellent tactics.
So, is it finally clear to you how you should answer Dave Lee?
Post by: pzkpfw on 30/10/2020 06:29:09
...
First you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded":current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Now you claim that the Universe has no edge:There is no edge to the Universe...
There is no "now". These statements are consistent.
You made a weird claim, that depends on the Universe having an edge.
I was pointing out that current science says there is no edge to the Universe (it is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded", both of those possibilities have no edge). Thus your claim that relies on there being an edge is just another one of your personal ideas; it's not a development from current science.
A house of cards.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/10/2020 06:40:16
I was pointing out that current science says there is no edge to the Universe (it is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded", both of those possibilities have no edge).Don't you understand that those statements contradict the BBT and fully support theory D?
In my first message about Theory D I have stated that the Universe is infinite.
In this message you fully confirm that the Universe could be Infinite.
That clearly contradicts the message from BC that the Universe can't be infinite.
On the Other hand as you claim that the Universe could be "finite but unbounded" or "have no edge" you actually contradict the BBT.
How long it would take you to understand that you shouldn't support my messages and shouldn't upset the master?
Post by: pzkpfw on 30/10/2020 06:48:46
...
I'll let Bored chemist say whether they think I'm contradicting them, or the BB. (I wouldn't trust you to tell me water is wet.)
Meanwhile, why don't you educate yourself on what the current science is? Do the homework that Bored chemist suggests?
This way, you can argue against science, instead of straw men.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/10/2020 07:00:34
Meanwhile, why don't you educate yourself on what the current science is? Do the homework that Bored chemist suggests?Perfect answer
This way, you can argue against science, instead of straw men.
You improve yourself!
Keep on.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2020 08:30:47
On the Other hand as you claim that the Universe could be "finite but unbounded" or "have no edge" you actually contradict the BBT.No, finite but unbounded fits the BBT just fine.
You problem seems to be composed of three parts
(1) You do not understand the BBT.
(2) You do not know what "finite but unbounded" means and
(3) you refuse to learn.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2020 08:32:05
You improve yourself!From the man who refuses to learn, that's rather ironic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2020 08:36:34
I'm curious.Have you done your homework yet?
What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?
Have you googled it yet?
If not, that proves my point that you are the one refusing to consider things that might show that you're wrong- the same thing you keep accusing me of.
If you have found out what it means, you presumably know that, for example, the Earth's surface is finite but unbounded and has no edge.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/10/2020 16:11:41
Your approach & tactics are very clear to all of us.
Please read again the seven points and let me know if I have forgotten something.
For you the BBT Theory is the base for any sort of real science.
Therefore, any science law/prove/statement that contradicts the BBT should be eliminated ASAP.
In a case that you can't eliminate the message, you try to eliminate the messenger. (Not physically..)
It almost seems that the BBT is like a message from God for you. No less than that.
That is OK. You have the freedom to believe in any sort of theory/religious which you like.
However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.
I assume that there is no way to expect from you to discuss real science as you only have interest in BBT "science".
However, as you ask so nicely - I will answer your following question:
Have you done your homework yet?
What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?
Have you googled it yet?
Well, Based on Google:
Infinite = Limited
Unbounded = Unlimited
So the meaning of the "finite but unbounded" is Limited but Unlimited"
It is like a claim for: Short But Long, White But Black, Day But Night and so on.
That message by itself proves that the BBT is just a useless theory.
the Earth's surface is finite but unbounded and has no edge.This is correct because we can set a curvature in the Earth's surface which represents a 2D in a space of 3D.
However, I have deeply explained why there is no way to get a curvature in a 3D space.
Therefore, in our real Universe if we go all the way to the left we would stay at the left up to the infinity.
There is no way to come back from the right while we are moving to the left.
Hence, as our scientists claim that there is no edge for our universe:
I was pointing out that current science says there is no edge to the UniverseThen there is only ONE solution for that kind of Universe:
either infiniteYes - ONLY INFINITE Universe can fulfill the statement of "unbounded" or no edge.
Hence, Based on Google:
Infinite = Unlimited
unbounded = Unlimited
Therefore, the meaning of infinite but unbounded is Unlimited but unlimited!!!
So, from now on you have to agree that our real Universe can ONLY be infinite.
As you clearly don't have any intention to abandon the BBT, it's time for our scientists to update the BBT for the real INFINITE/unlimited size of our entire universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2020 17:30:25
Try googling it as a phrase, rather than trying to do pointless word by word translations.
However, I have deeply explained why there is no way to get a curvature in a 3D space.No, you have not.
It's just that you believe it and so you think you have proved it.
In fact, you are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2020 17:37:15
For you the BBT Theory is the base for any sort of real science.No, it's the other way round.
Science is the basis for the BBT.
It might be better if you stopped pretending you know what I think, and actually looked at what I said.
Therefore, any science law/prove/statement that contradicts the BBT should be eliminated ASAP.No.
Any idea that contradicts either the laws of physics, or itself, is wrong and so it should be dropped without further consideration.
However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.But that's not my aim.
It's your bizarre idea.
My aim is to toss out stuff that does not make sense.
For example, an idea that is based on something which is plainly wrong should be put aside.
An idea that breaks the known laws of physics should be dumped.
I'm not actually all that bothered about the BBT.
If someone actually showed that it was wrong, I wouldn't care.
But, as I have pointed out before, this thread isn't about the BBY and I'd be happy if you never mentioned it again.
I'd like you to answer this- which refers to a toy universe- not the BBT.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/10/2020 08:50:15
If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09
So, once again
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).
You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.
but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.
So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/10/2020 04:53:50
My aim is to toss out stuff that does not make sense.The BBT is the last theory/idea in the whole Universe that makes any sort of sense.
How can you set the BBT and Sense in the same line?
We discuss now on the size of the Universe.
Where was that sense when you have stated that it is not important to understand the real size of the Universe?
How can you bypass the "sense" when it comes to the size of the Universe in the BBT?
The size is the MOST important feature for Universe as well as for any object or animal.
What is the sense to discuss on the features of A Galaxy, Star, Planet, Elephant or Ant without understanding their size/mass?
The impact of physics might be different for each size/mass.
The shape of the galaxy is different from the shape of a star and the shape of elephant is different from the shape of the ant due to the impact of physics on different sizes/mass.
A Star in the size of the MW galaxy and an Ant in the size of the elephant is unrealistic due to physics.
So, before we even set a theory - we MUST understand the size of Universe for this theory.
A theory for a universe without size is a theory without sense.
As you constantly refuse to tell what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT, then it is very clear that you are not using "sense" when it comes to protect the BBT
Actually there must be a sense why you accept and protect the BBT without understanding the size of the universe due to that theory.
The sense is that you afraid that at any size which you would highlight, the physics of law would prove that this theory is none realistic.
Therefore, you are using "Toy" universe when you discuss on size:
I'd like you to answer this- which refers to a toy universe- not the BBT.Why do you insist to offer that toy Universe when it comes to size instead of discussing the real size of our universe?
Don't you agree that the sense is that you wish to protect that BBT?
Therefore, your following message is just incorrect:
I'm not actually all that bothered about the BBT.You are deeply bothered about the BBT and you really care about it!!!
If someone actually showed that it was wrong, I wouldn't care.
I'm focusing now on the size of the Universe.
It is your obligation to offer the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
Please don't use a toy universe for a size, don't answer a question by question and don't jump to other issue.
Your tactics are very clear to all of us.
Well, if this isn't your aim as you say, then why do you refuse to tell us what is the size of the Universe based on this Theory?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:11:41But that's not my aim.
However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.
Any idea that contradicts either the laws of physics, or itself, is wrong and so it should be dropped without further consideration.Why do you refuse to evaluate the size of BBT' universe based on real law of physics?
Actually, do you confirm that in order to support the BBT, new set of "physics law" had been developed especially for that BBT?
Therefore, for the last time:
Can you tell us what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
Yes Or NO???
I insist to get a clear size for the real Universe based on the BBT (assuming that it is a theory for the Universe)
If you can't give a size for our Universe based on that BBT - and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.
Once we agree on that we can move on to any question which you might have.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/10/2020 10:50:09
How can you set the BBT and Sense in the same line?I don't think I did.
We discuss now on the size of the Universe.OK
You made a claim about the size of the universe.
You said this
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.
And I pointed out that you are wrong
The CMBR is not an indication that the Universe is infinite.
I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.
So you can not say that the CMBR shows that space is infinite.
And since you base Theory D on the idea that the CMBR tells you something, but the CMBR does not tell you that thing, Theory D is based on something which is not true.
And I keep asking you to face that.
But you don't.
But you keep going on about BBT which isn't relevant.
Well, if this isn't your aim as you say, then why do you refuse to tell us what is the size of the Universe based on this Theory?I don't tell you what BBT tells you about the universe's size because the thread isn't about the BBT.
Incidentally, you have it backwards
The observations of the universe tell us what the BBT should be, rather than the other way round.
Why do you refuse to evaluate the size of BBT' universe based on real law of physics?The theory has been looked at by people who, unlike you, understand the conservation laws, but that's not the point.
The thread isn't about the BBT.
It's about "Theory D" which we can write off because it is inconsistent with the laws of physics.
It doesn't matter if BBT is right or not.
We still know that "theory D" is wrong.
Both because it is based on a mistake about the CMBR, and also because it breaks the laws of physics.
You are deeply bothered about the BBT and you really care about it!!!It's going to be quicker if you don't tell lies about either my beliefs or your ability to deduce them.
It is your obligation to offer the size of the Universe based on the BBT.No, it isn't.
Because (1) I don't really care about the BBT and (2) The thread is about theory D which is known to be wrong because it breaks the conservation laws and is based on a flawed understanding of the CMBR.
Actually, do you confirm that in order to support the BBT, new set of "physics law" had been developed especially for that BBT?No.
The only one trying to invent new laws of physics is you.
You are inventing new laws that let you break mass/energy conservation.
Real physics (including teh BBT, as it happens) does not do that.
Please don't use a toy universe for a size,I never did.
It's just that you don't seem able to understand why I did introduce that toy universe.
The only reason for me bringing it up was that it shows that you are wrong in the first two lines of the thread- the ones I quoted earlier in this post.
Can you tell us what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT.Who cares? If you actually wanted to know, you would google it.
Yes Or NO???
The BBT has nothing to do with the failure of "Theory D".
You are the only one who keeps talking about BBT. It's particularly stupid for you to claim I'm the one who is deeply attached to it.
It's pretty clear that you are obsessed by your hatred of it.
Your tactics are very clear to all of us.Your "tactic" is to repeatedly fail to answer simple questions about "Theory D".
It's not good debating practice and it's even worse science.
But I guess it's the only option open when you know that your idea doesn't work.
and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.I don't care about the flowers in your garden.
Does that mean they are garbage?
Or do you now recognise that your statement makes no sense?
Why do you insist to offer that toy Universe when it comes to size instead of discussing the real size of our universe?I didn't.
You just don't understand that I introduced the toy universe to show that the first two lines of your thread are false.
I keep asking you to address that.
You keep not answering.
Once we agree on thatWe are not going to agree that your flowers should be put in the garbage because I don't care about them. It doesn't make sense.
And we aren't going to agree that the BBT should be put in the garbage because I don't care about it, because that wouldn't make sense either.
I'm focusing now on the size of the Universe.Really?
You seem to be focussing on the BBT.
So, before we even set a theory - we MUST understand the size of Universe for this theory.No.
That's obviously wrong.
It's possible to have a theory which says "the size of the universe is changing constantly"
And, in that case, the theory can not possibly tell you the size.
You need experiments and observations to do that.
Therefore, you are using "Toy" universe when you discuss on size:No.
That's your misunderstanding.
Do you now realise that the point of that toy was to show that your understanding off the CMBR was wrong?
don't answer a question by question and don't jump to other issue.Who are you to tell me how I should answer a question?
But, speaking of answering questions, have a go at this one.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 16:08:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/10/2020 08:50:15
If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09
So, once again
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).
You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.
but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.
So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/10/2020 18:36:50
QuoteOK
You made a claim about the size of the universe.
You said this
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.
And I pointed out that you are wrong
The CMBR is not an indication that the Universe is infinite.
I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.
So you cannot say that the CMBR shows that space is infinite.
And since you base Theory D on the idea that the CMBR tells you something, but the CMBR does not tell you that thing, Theory D is based on something which is not true.
Your following statement is totally incorrect:
"The CMBR is not an indication that the Universe is infinite."
As the BBR radiation in the CMBR is a vital indication for an infinite Universe.
Your following statement is also based on a pure imagination:
"I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.
So you cannot say that the CMBR shows that space is infinite."
Your understanding about the BBR is not based on real science. It is based on imagination and wishful list.
I have already deeply explained it before.
However, you are master in asking the same question after getting full answer for your question.
So, I would answer that question again.
The question is: What is the meaning of the Black body radiation in the CMBR?
In order to answer that question, you must understand the real meaning of BBR as it is clearly explained by the science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
An ideal black body in thermal equilibrium has two notable properties:[2]
"It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.
It is a diffuse emitter: measured per unit area perpendicular to the direction, the energy is radiated isotropically, independent of direction.
An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example). Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. When the radiation confined in such an enclosure is in thermal equilibrium, the radiation emitted from the hole will be as great as from any body at that equilibrium temperature."
So, please read it again:
"An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example)."
Therefore, let's assume that we can divide the universe into many large isolated enclosures by real walls.
I hope that we all agree that at each one of those isolated enclosure the radiation would carry a BBR.
Let's try to understand the outcome at the moment of eliminating those walls
1. In a finite Universe.
If we eliminate the walls between the isolated enclosures in a finite Universe, and still keep only the envelope around that Universe, then this finite Universe would still carry a BBR.
However, If we eliminate the envelope around the infinite Universe - the BBR would be eliminated.
2. In Infinite Universe -
In this Universe there is infinite number of isolated enclosures.
In each one of those enclosures there is a BBR.
Our scientists claim that the Universe at large scale is homogenous and isotropic.
So, if each isolated enclosure would be big enough to cover that large scale, the CMBR in each enclosure would be identical to all the other isolated enclosures in that infinite Universe.
As it is infinite Universe even if we take out the walls between all the infinite no. of the isolated enclosures in that Universe and even eliminate the envelope around the Infinite Universe, the BBR in the CMBR would stay the same.
Therefore, a infinite Universe acts as a Universe without edge.
Hence, ONLY a Infinite Universe could carry a Black body radiation without any need for an envelope around it.
Please be ware that in that article there is not even a single word about your imagination of "a model universe that was finite in time and extent" as you have stated:
I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.That model is imagination model. The real science doesn't cover that kind of imagination.
Therefore, if for the BBT you need a model universe that was finite in time and extent then this model is non realistic and not part of any BBR explanation. Hence, the whole BBT should be set in the garbage.
I don't tell you what BBT tells you about the universe's size because the thread isn't about the BBT.This thread is all about real science
Incidentally, you have it backwards
The observations of the universe tell us what the BBT should be, rather than the other way round.
The title of the tread is irrelevant.
If you wish I have no problem to open a specific tread about the BBT.
In any case, A theory for a Universe without a clear estimation for its size can't be consider as a theory or even as an idea.
In all your long answer you can't specify the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
There is a clear answer for that.
At any finite size that you would chose, we might prove that BBT theory is incorrect.
So, you bypass that issue by long answer without real data.
It is very clear that you and our scientists don't wish to deal with that issue
Hence, as I have stated:
Can you tell us what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT.The BBT without a universe size should be set in the garbage.
Yes Or NO???
I insist to get a clear size for the real Universe based on the BBT (assuming that it is a theory for the Universe)
If you can't give a size for our Universe based on that BBT - and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.
Once we agree on that we can move on to any question which you might have.
Therefore, starting from this moment without offering the size of the Universe based on the BBT, this theory is irrelevant.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/10/2020 19:27:30
As the BBR radiation in the CMBR is a vital indication for an infinite Universe.You agreed that it wasn't. The CMBR would look the same in a finite universe.
Your understanding about the BBR is not based on real science. It is based on imagination and wishful list.No.
You already accepted that the BBR would be the same in a finite universe.
So, please read it again:I can read it as many times as I like.
"An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example)."
But you are missing the point.
A hole in a box is not the only way to get BBR.
A candle flame gives a very good approximation to BBR.
So does a tungsten lamp or a glowing barbeque.
So does the Sun.
So you can not say that th e universe is a box with a hole in it because it emits BBR.
Do you understand that?
However, If we eliminate the envelope around the infinite Universe - the BBR would be eliminated.Nonsense, there's no envelope round a candle flame, but it still emits BBR.
Hence, ONLY a Infinite Universe could carry a Black body radiation without any need for an envelope around it.That is not true of a barbeque and it is not true of a universe.
It's just stuff you made up because you didn't understand that teh "box with a hole in it" is only one example of something that emits BBR.
Do you see that?
Do you agree that a candle emits BBR (to a good approximation)?
The real science doesn't cover that kind of imagination.Yes it does.
It is called a "thought experiment"
Were you not aware of that?
Science has been using them for hundreds of years.
Therefore, if for the BBT you need a model universe that was finite in time and extent then this model is non realistic and not part of any BBR explanation. Hence, the whole BBT should be set in the garbage.The Toy universe was nothing to do with teh BBT.
It is just proof that you are (still) wrong.
This thread is all about real scienceNo
It is about "Theory D" which breaks the laws of physics.
In any case, A theory for a Universe without a clear estimation for its size can't be consider as a theory or even as an idea.Yes it can.
As I said, if the model says the universe is changing then it is impossible to say what the size is.
In all your long answer you can't specify the size of the Universe based on the BBT.I never bothered to try because the thread isn't about the BBT.
But, you can always google the answer if you want.
It's stupid to pretend that the answer does not exist.
The BBT without a universe size should be set in the garbage.The universe may not have a size. (For example, if the size is changing).
If that's true then any "theory" which purports to tell you the "size of the universe" is wrong because the theory doesn't know what the time is.
If you can't give a size for our Universe based on that BBT - and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.You have stated that repeatedly.
And I have shown that it makes no sense
We are not going to agree that your flowers should be put in the garbage because I don't care about them. It doesn't make sense.
And we aren't going to agree that the BBT should be put in the garbage because I don't care about it, because that wouldn't make sense either.
You repeating it does not stop it being wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/11/2020 06:09:30
You agreed that it wasn't. The CMBR would look the same in a finite universe.Never & ever.
I have stated that a finite Universe with envelop around it would carry a BBR.
However, as there is no envelop or walls around our real universe, a finite Universe would never ever has the ability to carry a BBR.
A hole in a box is not the only way to get BBR.You have a fatal mistake.
The BBR in this box isn't due to that hole but due to the fact that it is isolated enclosure.
The Hole is just used as a monitor point for the radiation inside that box.
A candle flame gives a very good approximation to BBR.It is very clear that you don't have a basic knowledge in Black body radiation.
So does a tungsten lamp or a glowing barbeque.
So does the Sun.
So you can not say that th e universe is a box with a hole in it because it emits BBR.
Do you understand that?
It is correct that a candle flame gives a very good approximation to BBR. So does a tungsten lamp or a glowing barbeque.
However, it is not due to the Hole or due to the Box.
It is due to a micro photosphere around those sources of light.
In order to have better understanding please look at the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
An idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation"
So the heat of the candle flame or the tungsten lamp generates some sort of micro photosphere around the source of light. That photosphere converts the radiation into BBR.
Same issue with the Sun.
Its intense heat generates a photosphere around it, and due to this photosphere we get the BBR radiation.
Therefore, a LED which doesn't create intense heat doesn't have a photosphere around its source of light and therefore it has no BBR.
Is it clear to you by now?
Therefore, the universe can't be compare for a single source of light with intense heat, as a Sun or a candle flame but to a box with unlimited sources of radiation.
As the total temp of the CMBR is very law, it is clear that there is no photosphere around the Universe.
So, we need to consider the Universe as box with cold source of light LEDs inside it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body_realization.svg
An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure
In this case, the BBR would be achieved ONLY if the box would be insulated enclosure.
Therefore, a finite Universe without an envelope wouldn't be able to carry any sort of BBR.
While the Only solution for that is Infinite Box with Infinite No of light sources, which means INFINITE Universe.
There is no other alternative for our universe to carry BBR.
Only a infinite universe can do it!!!
It's time for you to focus on real science and stop reading that imagination science which is called the "BBT science" as there is no science in the BBT.
It is about "Theory D" which breaks the laws of physics.The BBT is the only fiction that breaks real laws of physics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/11/2020 12:15:26
However, it is not due to the Hole or due to the Box.I am glad you finally understand this. That's the start of the point I have been trying to get you to understand.
OK
Now that you realise " a hole in a box" is nothing to do with BBR, do you realise that all the stuff you said about boxes with holes in is irrelevant?
And so all the deductions you made about the size of a universe- based on ideas of boxes with holes in- are wrong.
Do you understand that too?
Never & ever.Here's what you said.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.
And, the implication is that- in any direction where you can't see the edge , you would see teh CMBR.
So, you really did agree that's what you would see.
OK it only applies if you are in the middle of the universe. But we know that, if there's an edge, we can't see it, so we know that we must be in (or near) the middle.
So, as long as you weren't too near the edge, you would see the same CMBR that we do see.
You did agree that. And you have only started to pretend that you didn't since I pointed out that it means you have contradicted yourself.
I asked the same questions lots of times and you failed to answer it then you gave that bad answer- it's bad because it isn't clear.
And the stuff I quoted above is your answer to the question.
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Are you saying that it is not the answer?
If it isn't, why did you lie about it by saying this?
Why do you ask the same question again and again while you have clearly got full answer?
You really did agree that, near the middle of that toy universe- which is finite, the CMBR would look exactly the same as in our universe.
Therefore, a LED which doesn't create intense heat doesn't have a photosphere around its source of light and therefore it has no BBR.What is clear to me is that you do not understand BBR or the meaning of the word "photosphere".
Is it clear to you by now?
Only stars have photospheres.
An LED doesn't emit BBR.
But a person does- that's how PIR motion sensors work.
Are you saying that you have your own personal photosphere?
It's better if you don't make up silly ideas like that.
In this case, the BBR would be achieved ONLY if the box would be insulated enclosure.No
That's just not true.
BBR can be produced without a box with a hole.
It can be produced, for example, by a xenon plasma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp
And, in much the same way, by a hydrogen plasma in the early universe.
You even said that it's not true.
it is not due to the Hole or due to the Box.Unfortunately, you then made up stuff
It is due to a micro photosphere around those sources of light.
The thing is that the photosphere of a star is made of gas.
But in a tungsten lamp, the filament is surrounded by a vacuum (at least, it is for the ones used as BBR sources in physics labs)
So there's nothing there for the photosphere to be made from.
So you are clearly wrong.
It's just tosh you made up.
Do you see the irony?
Actually, do you confirm that in order to support the BBT, new set of "physics law" had been developed especially for that BBT?You are trying to develop a "physics law" (- the idea that everything has a photosphere-) that is only there to allow you to talk nonsense about BBR.
Isn't that what you are doing?
Why else are you pretending that a light bulb is a star and has a photosphere?
If you were inside a (really big) candle flame, what you would see was the BBR from that flame.
Not because it has a wall round it, but because it is a wall. Big fires are opaque.
So are dense plasmas like the early universe.
So the problems with your idea are:
The photosphere thing only exists with stars. It's irrelevant and absurd to apply it to anything else.
The emission of BBR does not require a "box"- candle flame, a tungsten lamp or a person proves that
The early universe was black and could emit BBR without needing to be in a box.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/11/2020 17:23:04
The following message is correct
You really did agree that, near the middle of that toy universe- which is finite, the CMBR would look exactly the same as in our universe.However, I claim that a CMBR of a finite Universe would never ever carry a BBR.
Is it clear to you???
The thing is that the photosphere of a star is made of gas.As I have stated, it is very clear that you have no clue about the source of the BBR.
But in a tungsten lamp, the filament is surrounded by a vacuum (at least, it is for the ones used as BBR sources in physics labs)
So there's nothing there for the photosphere to be made from.
So you are clearly wrong.
So, please look again at the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.pngIn this case the BBR is created due to the backwards reflection of the radiation from the edge of that photosphere.
An idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation"
So, the photosphere acts as a unique layer which reflects back the radiation.
Therefore, any sort of layer that reflects back the radiation would create the BBR.
With regards to the intense heat around the source of light as Candle or even hot plasma:
The heat itself sets some sort of a very hot layer around the source of light.
There is no need to have gas in that layer.
Just the intense heat itself is good enough.
That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.
Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.
Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.
It can be produced, for example, by a xenon plasma.The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp
And, in much the same way, by a hydrogen plasma in the early universe.
So, I agree that there is good chance that the hydrogen plasma in the early universe could create a BBR.
However, that BBR would stay as long as we the hot hydrogen plasma is still hot in that early universe.
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.
So, the idea that you can keep the BBR from that early universe after the hydrogen plasma had been cooled down is a pure fiction from the unrealistic "BBT science".
In the same way - if you cool down the sun to 2.7K you won't get any sort of BBR radiation from that object.
Therefore, the BBR can stay as long as the heat is high enough.
However, in our real Universe the CMBR temp is only 2.7K. That temp can't generate any sort of BBR due to the back reflection of intense heat.
Conclusion:
There are only two options to get the BBR.
1. A single source of an intense heat
2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.
The CMBR temp is only 2.7K. Therefore, it can't be considered as intense heat.
Hence, the only possibility for the CMBR to carry a BBR is just in an isolated enclosure.
That could be achievable in a finite universe with an envelope or in infinite Universe.
As the finite universe with envelop is not realistic, the only possibility for the CMBR to carry BBR is if it is located in Infinite Universe.
Is it finely clear to you???
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/11/2020 19:02:49
However, I claim that a CMBR of a finite Universe would never ever carry a BBR.It is clear that you are wrong.
Is it clear to you???
As I have stated, it is very clear that you have no clue about the source of the BBR.Yes I have, unlike you.
You tell me to look at "An idealized view of the cross-section of a star."
But the BBR of the CMBR is not due to a star.
So the stuff about how stars are made up is irrelevant, isn't it?
So it is clear that you do not understand the BBR we see throughout the universe.
In this case the BBR is created due to the backwards reflection of the radiation from the edge of that photosphere.Very obviously, the light that gets out of stars is not caused by light being reflected by some imaginary coating round stars.
Not that it matters- the stars do not produce the CMBR.
So, the photosphere acts as a unique layer which reflects back the radiation.No.
Therefore, any sort of layer that reflects back the radiation would create the BBR.LOL
That is as close to anyone actually trying to argue that "Black is white" as I have ever seen.
The thing about BBR is that it is emitted by black things- like hot coal.
That's where the name is from.
And the thing about black is that it does not reflect; it absorbs.
You are tying yourself in knots here trying to pretend that you are right. All you succeed in doing is looking more and more foolish.
There is no need to have gas in that layer.That is just rubbish you made up.
Just the intense heat itself is good enough.
That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.
Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.
Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.
Only stars have a photosphere.
And your magical idea is a thing that is black and white at the same time.
The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.Not "could"; does.
It's an experimental fact.
However, that BBR would stay as longno
Photons last "forever".
Unless there is something to absorb them, they carry on forever.
And that's the point. There was a time when the universe cooled enough to let the photons through.
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.No.
Only if it hit something which absorbed it but practically the only thing in the universe was hydrogen, which is transparent. so teh BBR carried on. We can tell because some of it is still reaching us.
So, the idea that you can keep the BBR from that early universe after the hydrogen plasma had been cooled down is a pure fictioWhy is it "pure fiction" to say that light will pass through hydrogen?
Because that's all I claim.
Since there's nothing to stop it, that light from the hot dense plasma carries on until it hits something.
In the same way - if you cool down the sun to 2.7K you won't get any sort of BBR radiation from that object.First of all, actually, yes you would.
Secondly, nobody was saying anything about cooling the Sun down.
The Sun is not the source of the CMBR. Nor is any other star.
That temp can't generate any sort of BBR due to the back reflection of intense heat.That is meaningless or wrong.
Things at about 2K definitely do emit BBR. It is a real problem for people trying to set records for lowest temperature etc. the stuff found their apparatus is cooled by liquid helium, but that is still "hot" enough to warm their experiment by radiation.
If you actually knew about science, you would know that.
Conclusion:No there is a third, obvious option.
There are only two options to get the BBR.
1. A single source of an intense heat
2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.
The man who thinks that white things are black is wrong.
So, for example, you can get BBR from a person.
That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."
So you are obviously wrong.
Why don't you actually learn about BBR?
Then you can look less foolish in the future?
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/11/2020 08:05:32
Do you have a basic clue what is the explanation for that experimental fact?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04Not "could"; does.
The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.
It's an experimental fact.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04That is just rubbish you made up.
There is no need to have gas in that layer.
Just the intense heat itself is good enough.
That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.
Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.
Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.
Only stars have a photosphere.
You don't have a basic knowledge in real science and it seems that you don't wish to understand the explanation for the experimental fact
For any fact there must be an explanation.
As you don't understand that explanation (and you even don't care about it) - you don't understand real science!!!
It is clear that you are wrong.I have backup my understanding by real articles about BBR.
You are just highlight statements without any backup by real BBR articles.
That clearly shows that you don't have a basic knowledge in real science of black body radiation.
From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.
That respond shows again that you have a severe mistake.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04No there is a third, obvious option.
Conclusion:
There are only two options to get the BBR.
1. A single source of an intense heat
2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.
The man who thinks that white things are black is wrong.
So, for example, you can get BBR from a person.
That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."
So you are obviously wrong.
You claim that "you can get BBR from a person"
First it is your obligation to prove this statement. So please offer the article which supports this understanding
Second, even if this is correct, a person should be considered as a single source. The average temp of a person is 37c.
Therefore, I assume that if you set this person in a very cold environment, he should radiate some heat.
However, it is very clear that at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.
Therefore, please backup your statement about a person that could radiate BBR radiation at any environment temp by real article.
In any case, at the maximum we should consider that person as a single source with heat (or even intense heat with reference to its local aria temp).
Therefore, this person meets option no. 1 as I have stated.
Hence, you have failed to prove that there is other option (as you have stated) and you have proved that you have no clue in BBR.
noA single photon doesn't carry any sort of BBR.
Photons last "forever".
Unless there is something to absorb them, they carry on forever.
And that's the point. There was a time when the universe cooled enough to let the photons through.
I have clearly explained how the BBR could be created.
The photons cross the space at the speed of light.
Therefore, if the Universe was compact at the early time, the radiation which might carry a BBR radiation during that early time had to cross the universe long time ago.
But the BBR of the CMBR is not due to a star.No
So the stuff about how stars are made up is irrelevant, isn't it?
So it is clear that you do not understand the BBR we see throughout the universe.
The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.
The idea that it is due to the early universe Era is a pure fiction!!!
We all agree that the radiation is moving at the speed of light. Therefore, there is no way to keep the radiation in a finite aria even if we call that aria - finite Universe.
The are two options to keep a radiation in a limited aria or finite Universe:
1, The finite Universe acts as isolated enclosure. We all agree that this isn't the case
2. there is curvature in the finite Universe - This is also incorrect and I have already proved it.
Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.
If the Universe could hold the radiation from the early time for so long time, then it had to hold also this supernova also for very long time.
This isn't the case, as the Universe isn't holding any radiation.
This idea by itself is the BIGGEST MISTAKE of the modern science.
The CMBR that we see arrive to our location from the infinity of our current Universe and it is based on all the radiation sources in our Universe including Galaxies, Stars and any sort of real matter.
Conclusion:
There are only two options to get the BBR.
1. A single source of an intense heat
2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.
No there is a third, obvious option.So, please - from now on you have to prove you’re the third option by real BBR article.
I wouldn't accept any more imagination from your side without real science articles about the specific subject.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2020 09:13:29
Do you have a basic clue what is the explanation for that experimental fact?Yes, I do.
Like I said before, I'm a spectroscopist. This is the stuff I'm trained to know.
That's why I find it to so easy to point out the errors in the stuff you post.
There's an explanation here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_spectrum
You don't have a basic knowledge in real scienceThat's just childish.
I'm not the one who thought that the CMBR was due to stars.
You are just highlight statements without any backup by real BBR articles.No, it does not.
That clearly shows that you don't have a basic knowledge in real science of black body radiation.
From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.You know how I said (a couple of times now, I think) that I'm a scientist who does this sort of thing for a living...
Who do you think WRITES articles?
That's why I'm not actually obliged to cite them; it would be redundant.
You claim that "you can get BBR from a person"If you actually knew the relevant science, you would accept it as not merely true, but obvious.
First it is your obligation to prove this statement.
However, for the benefit of the kindergarteners
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1#c19
Which says
" within the range from 5 μm to 20 μm , the skin closely obeys the laws of blackbody emission".
I'm not stupid; if it wasn't true I wouldn't say it.
I leave making false statements to you. You make plenty, for example.
The average temp of a person is 37c.No, that's the core temp, the skin is significantly cooler.
However, it is very clear that at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.That's not how it works.The emission from the skin is determined by the temperature of the skin.
That is controlled by a number of factors- like drinking alcohol- but the physics doesn't care.
If the room is warmer than the person, the person still emits the same amount of IR.
But the room also emits IR that's pretty close to BBR and the person absorbs (at least some of) that.
Everything that is above absolute zero emits radiation - roughly in accordance with BBR. (In much better accordance with Kirchhoff's radiation laws)
(Again, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would already knowthat,but you are a bigoted fool so here's the wiki page for you.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
Why is it that you say this
From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.when it is you who is making up imaginary stuff about BBR?
A single photon doesn't carry any sort of BBR.Nobody said it did.
I have clearly explained how the BBR could be created.You haven't explained anything clearly, and you haven't explained BBR correctly- because you don't understand it.
That's why you can post nonsense like this
at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.In reality, he emits at a rate determined by his temperature, not that of the environment he is in.
How much heat he absorbs from his environment is determined by the outside temperature, but that is another matter.
Therefore, if the Universe was compact at the early time, the radiation which might carry a BBR radiation during that early time had to cross the universe long time ago.Congratulations, you have found the experimental evidence for expansion.
This expansion of space also stretches the wavelengths which is why the light- produced at a temperature of something like 10,000K reaches us with a temperature of 2.7K.
The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.Since stars are not at 2.7K that is impossible.
The idea that it is due to the early universe Era is a pure fiction!!!That's the only possible way for it to be so evenly distributed.
Therefore, there is no way to keep the radiation in a finite aria even if we call that ariaStop talking about songs, it makes it look like you are not paying attention.
Since the universe is expanding, the light takes longer to cross the universe than the age of the universe.
there is curvature in the finite Universe - This is also incorrect and I have already proved it.You haven't proved anything.
But, yes the universe is curved.
So what?
Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.But, according to you, that is impossible.
The light would somehow" get cold" on the way.
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.If you were right, the same thing would happen to light from a supernova.
But we see them.
So we know you are wrong.
This isn't the case, as the Universe isn't holding any radiation.It isn't "holding" it, it is just that the universe id big. So big that it takes longer than the age of the universe for light to cross it.
That's why the light is still getting here.
And ew know that because we see it.
Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.No we don't.
Supernovae would give the wrong spectrum.
They are hot and emit UV and Xrays.
The CMBR is cold and is made of microwaves.
So, your idea is plainly wrong.
So, please - from now on you have to prove you’re the third option by real BBR article.I already did.
You now have an article that says people more or less emit BBR.
And you know, because I already pointed it out, that.
you can get BBR from a person.
That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."
So you are obviously wrong.
Why don't you actually learn about BBR?
Then you can look less foolish in the future?
I wouldn't accept any more imagination from your side without real science articles about the specific subject.I'm the one providing science.
But you have this teh wrong way round.
Al I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.
You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.
You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.
You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/11/2020 17:54:02
Congratulations, you have found the experimental evidence for expansion.Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K
This expansion of space also stretches the wavelengths which is why the light- produced at a temperature of something like 10,000K reaches us with a temperature of 2.7K.
It is just imagination.
Therefore, your statement the 2.7K is the outcome of the expansion is also one more imagination.
This is real.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:05:32Since stars are not at 2.7K that is impossible.
The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.
The CMB in our Universe is direct radiation from all the stars and matter in our infinite Universe.
In order to prove that it is feasible, we can do the following:
Let's assume that we can eliminate the CMBR from our Universe.
Let's also assume that we can isolate our galaxy in some sort of a sphere.
This shere would be considered as isolated enclosure or Oven.
If we do so, we should find that the temp of that isolated enclosure is going up.
Technically after long enough time we can achieve that 2.7K.
Now, just consider for one moment that our real universe is infinite.
We would divide in to infinite no. of isolated enclosures.
Let's assume that the total matter in each isolated enclosure is the same everywhere.
Therefore, the temp in each isolated enclosure would be the same.
So, once we eliminate the walls, the infinite Universe should keep that 2.7K as well as the BBR.
Therefore, our universe would keep that temp of 2.7K and the BBR forever and ever.
If we would come back to the universe in 10 Billion years from now (or 100 Trillions Y), we would see a similar Universe with a similar CMBR.
Hence, this temp doesn't represent a transient situation in the CMBR due to the expansion as it is here to stay forever and ever.
Actually, based on the BBT that temp should be reduced by time.
I wonder what might be the change in the CMBR temp after 10 or 100 Years.
Is there any possibility to verify that change by using very accurate measurements tool?
No, you are wrongQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04If you were right, the same thing would happen to light from a supernova.
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.
But we see them.
So we know you are wrong.
We can observe the supernova, but for a very short time.
So, if the supernova activity took place for only 10 m, then this is the time duration that we can observe it.
No more than that.
So, it might take the supernova radiation 13 By to cross the space until it gets to us, but then we can observe it for only 10 minutes.
In the same token, if there was a radiation from the early Universe, that radiation couldn't last longer than the time of its existence.
The supernova proves that there is no expansion in the Universe.
If there was, we could observe the supernova for many years or even million years.
Hence, as we can get the supernova radiation at the same duration as it really took place in the past without any sort of time extension, it proves that the radiation from the early Era of the Universe can't exist in the space more that its real duration of time.
Therefore, there is no expansion in space!!!
Supernovae would give the wrong spectrum.The spectrum is none relevant to the duration.
They are hot and emit UV and Xrays.
The CMBR is cold and is made of microwaves.
As the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2020 18:24:27
Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000KThat's the temperature associated with the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen.
It always was.
It always will be.
Therefore, your statement the 2.7K is the outcome of the expansion is also one more imagination.No
We can measure the CMBT temperature; it's about 2.7K
It's an experimental observation, but you have such a poor understanding that you think it's something I imagined.
Technically after long enough time we can achieve that 2.7K.Then, after an infinite time, it will all be as hot as the stars. That's essentially Olber's paradox.
Now, just consider for one moment that our real universe is infinite.
It's one of the many reasons we know you are wrong.
Therefore, our universe would keep that temp of 2.7K and the BBR forever and ever.No
The stars would keep on heating it until it reached about the same temperature as the sun.
Fortunately, you are wrong, and the universe hasn't been here forever.
So, if the supernova activity took place for only 10 m... then it wouldn't be a supernova.
In the same token, if there was a radiation from the early Universe, that radiation couldn't last longer than the time of its existence.Not a problem. The universe is still here.
It didn't last 10 minutes.
It has lasted about 14 billion years.
So the light carries on reaching us for14 billion years.
And, in another 14 billion years, exactly the same thing will happen, but the "14" will be replaced with"28".
No problem.
The spectrum is none relevant to the duration.Nobody said it was.
But it is relevant to the temperature.
As the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.That just doesn't make any sense at all.
Anyway.
Al I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.
You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.
You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.
You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/11/2020 19:59:58
The idea of the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen is one more imagination, as this activity won't take place without Magnetic field. As our scientists do not claim for magnetic field at the recombination era, then the whole idea is a pure fiction.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02That's the temperature associated with the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen.
Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K
It always was.
It always will be.
We clearly see today that activity of recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen at the accretion disc around the SMBH. If we could shut down the Mighty SMBH Magnetic field, not even one Hydrogen would be created.
Then, after an infinite time, it will all be as hot as the stars. That's essentially Olber's paradox.
It's one of the many reasons we know you are wrong.
I have already explained that issue.
However, I can do it again for you.
Olber paradox is correct as long as the Infinite galaxies in the Infinite universe won't move away from each other faster than the speed of light.
Olber didn't know that in our real infinite universe the far end galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light.
So, theoretically, we can claim that starting from a distance of R, we can't get a radiation from any galaxy that is moving away faster than the speed of light with reference to our location.
Therefore, although at any direction there are infinite no of galaxies, we can get the radiation from only the galaxies which are located at the sphere which is represented by R.
Hence, the CMBR is based ONLY on those FINITE galaxies in that R sphere which is just a minor point in the infinite Universe.
So again, although we are living in infinite Universe with Infinite Galaxies, we can get a radiation from only a finite no of galaxies.
Therefore, as the CMBR is based on a finite no of galaxies in an infinite universe, it could get to a maximal temp of 2.7K
Hence, from any location that we might be in that infinite galaxy, we can get a radiation from that limited R sphere. Therefore, we get a perfect symmetric radiation from any direction.
Fortunately, you are wrong, and the universe hasn't been here forever.The Universe was here forever and it will stay forever and ever!!!
You and all our "BBT scientists" don't have a basic knowledge about the real activity of that infinite Universe.
It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills the expansion idea and the whole BBT fiction.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02That just doesn't make any sense at all.
As the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.
Once you confirm that the supernova from the early universe could last for only few minutes or few days, then it shows that the expansion has no impact on its duration.
Hence, if the expansion has no impact on the supernova, it surly has no impact on the radiation from the recombination era.
Therefore, if there was a radiation during the recombination era which last for X years, that X represents the maximal time duration that we could get a radiation from that era.
So, it is very clear that you want to believe in imagination.
The BBT is imagination.
The expansion is imagination
The Inflation is imagination.
However, you like it and also all the other "BBT scientists".
You all are locked inside the BBT black box without any ability or willing to unleash your Knowledge and break down the BBT chain that locks you so strongly.
I hope that at least you and the other "BBT scientists" enjoy your time in that black box.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2020 20:18:40
as this activity won't take place without Magnetic field.Protons have a magnetic field, so do electrons.
Not that it matters much.
. As our scientists do not claim for magnetic field at the recombination eraYes we do... because every single proton and every single electron in the universe has a magnetic field.
You are the one writing fiction.
Olber paradox is correct as long as the Infinite galaxies in the Infinite universe won't move away from each other faster than the speed of light.If they are moving away that fast then your "oven " cools down in a finite time to practically zero.
But we aren't at zero, so you are wrong.
Therefore, as the CMBR is based on a finite no of galaxies in an infinite universe, it could get to a maximal temp of 2.7KNo.
After an infinite time, the temperature falls to zero- not least because all the "nearby" stars burn out.
You and all our "BBT scientists" don't have a basic knowledge about the real activity of that infinite Universe.There's really no such thing as a "BBT scientist".
There are scientists- who understand physics.
And there is you, who doesn't.
It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova killsWhere did the mythical supernova come from?
Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
Al I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.
You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.
You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.
You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/11/2020 19:56:38
Yes we do... because every single proton and every single electron in the universe has a magnetic field.So do you claim that when electron see a nearby proton they merge into Hydrogen just by using their internal magnetic field? What about a request for external Electromagnetic field or pressure?
You are the one writing fiction.
Sorry, you are missing the most important impact of electromagnetic fild which is - Transformation of energy.
An infinite energy won't create even one single particle without EM.
Therefore, the Big bang energy wouldn't be transformed into even a single electron or proton without external EM.
Those electron and proton won't merge to hydrogen atom without external EM.
This is the meaning of real science!
So, how any one which consider himself as scientists could believe that somehow a Hydrogen Atoms could be created from the BBT energy without real source of electromagnetic energy transformation.
Sorry - the whole BBT is based on fiction and non realistic wishful list.
No.As you don't understand how our real Universe works, you have no clue about new created star process.
After an infinite time, the temperature falls to zero- not least because all the "nearby" stars burn out.
You have no idea about the new particles/atoms/molecular that are created in the accretion disc around the BH/SMBH
Those atoms/molecular are used to form new stars in our Universe.
So, although galaxies are moving away from each other while stars might burn out - new stars and new galaxies are created constantly.
Therefore, our Universe would live forever and by average it would carry that 2.7K CMBR forever and ever.
How can you ignore the great meaning of a supernova form the far end stars?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:59:58Where did the mythical supernova come from?
It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills the BBT
Some of those stars are located at a very far end of our Universe.
So, based on the BBT their age is quite close to the recombination era age.
Those BBT scientists tell us that the radiation that took place at that Era should stay with us almost forever due to the expansion in space.
If that is correct then how it could be that the supernova radiation which comes almost from a similar time frame stay with us for just few hours or few days?
Why the expansion in space can't hold the supernova also forever as it does with the recombination era radiation?
Sorry - The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that there is no space expansion in our Universe.
There's really no such thing as a "BBT scientist".Any scientist which accept the idea that somehow without external EM it is feasible to set Hydrogen Atoms from the BBT energy should be considered as BBT scientist.
There are scientists- who understand physics.
And there is you, who doesn't.
Any scientist which reject the real meaning of the supernova and accept the unrealistic idea of expansion in space should be considered as BBT scientist.
Any scientist which believes in the BBT imagination should be considered as BBT scientist as there is no science in the BBT. It is pure imagination.
You are clearly part of those BBT scientists.
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.No, we should share the same job for real science!!!
You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
Unfortunately, there is nothing real in the BBT science.
I have backup any statement by real evidences and articles.
You think that you are master of knowledge in science, but you are master in BBT imagination.
It is very clear to me that you would keep the BBT under any contradicted evidence.
Therefore, you can keep on with this BBT imagination and call it "science" as long as you wish.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/11/2020 21:18:16
So do you claim that when electron see a nearby proton they merge into Hydrogen just by using their internal magnetic field?No.
You were the one who made up tosh about magnetism.
They have opposite electrical charges so they attract.
When they "join up" your get light.
That's how this sort of welder works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hydrogen_welding
But that's real so you will presumably ignore it.
What about a request for external Electromagnetic field or pressure?There isn't one.
You made that up.
How can you ignore the great meaning of a supernova form the far end stars?The early universe didn't have a "far end", or any stars.
So, based on the BBT their age is quite close to the recombination era age.No.
That's nonsense.
The recombination ear is long before any stars were at the start of their lives, never mind the ends of them.
You are talking unscientific nonsense.
So, how any one which consider himself as scientists could believe that somehow a Hydrogen Atoms could be created from the BBT energy without real source of electromagnetic energy transformation.That is nonsense.
Sorry - the whole BBT is based on fiction and non realistic wishful list.
It's not what any scientist thinks.
It's just stuff you made up.
new stars and new galaxies are created constantly.And that's where you break the laws of physics.
You can't just ignore the conservation laws.
Therefore, our Universe would live forever and by average it would carry that 2.7K CMBR forever and ever.No.
Not according to actual science.
If your idea worked then since a lot of the matter in the universe is in stars, the average temperature of the universe would be close to the temperature of stars.
About ten thousand times hotter than the CMBR.
If that is correct then... it isn't.
The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that there is no space expansion in our Universe.The rules of physics, and experimental observations show that the universe is expanding and that supernovae exist.
There is no contradiction there. It's just stuff you made up.
Any scientist which reject the real meaning of the supernova and accept the unrealistic idea of expansion in space should be considered as BBT scientist.No, they should be considered a scientist.
rather than, for example, someone who says that welders and arc lamps do not work, who should not be considered a scientist.
No, we should share the same job for real science!!!Yes we should, and your part of that job is to provide the extraordinary evidence that you would need to back up your claim.
You can start now if you like.
First you have to explain why someone who doesn't know anything about science is right while all the actual scientists are wrong.
That's the really silly thing here.
You keep arguing as if it is just me who disagrees with you when, in fact, you are the only one "on your side" and everybody else knows you are wrong.
Then you have to explain why, even though it breaks the laws of physics, your idea is right.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:24:27
Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
All I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.
You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.
You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, not my job to prove that conventional science is right.
You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/11/2020 07:12:02
Let me start with this issueQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:38The rules of physics, and experimental observations show that the universe is expanding and that supernovae exist.
The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that there is no space expansion in our Universe.
There is no contradiction there. It's just stuff you made up.
Supernova!!!
In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1000%2B0216
SN 1000+0216 was an extremely remote superluminous supernova (SLSN),
The distance (redshift) to this supernova z=3.8993 ± 0.0074 makes it the most distant supernova observed as of 2012.
So, we have a supernova with redshift of z=3.8993
The question is - at what distance this supernova is located.
As a reference let me use the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Quasar
The quasar lies at redshift z = 1.41 (8.7 billion ly),
So, if z=1.4 represents a distance of almost 9 BLY, it is clear that a redshift of almost 4 should represent a distance above 10 BLY.
That distance actually represents an age of above 10By.
At that time the Universe was still quite compact.
Our scientists claim that the recombination Era took place about 13,4 By ago.
Hence, if we assume that the age of that Supernova is over than 10 BLY we can assume that took place only about 3 By after the recombination era.
Conclusion:
If our scientists insist that due to the expansion in space, the radiation from the recombination Era could stay with us almost forever, then the radiation from a supernova which took place at still relativity early Universe (10BY ago) should also stay with us for very long time due to the same expansion in space
However, that isn't the case.
All the supernovas at any distance/age seem to be very similar.
So, how could it be that the "The rules of physics" doesn't work at the same way on any sort of radiation from the early Universe?
How could it be that the radiation from the early universe supernova (10Byago) couldn't stay longer due to the same expansion in space (with same rules of physics) which holds the recombination Era radiation almost forever?
Why do you set your "rules of physics" ONLY where you need it and totally ignore the impact of the same rules of physics on other radiations?
This is solid evidence that there is no expansion in our Universe!!!
If you still disagree with that - you prove that your "rules of physics" is all about science imagination and you really don't care about real science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2020 08:47:42
That's not what the evidence says. So your whole post is based on nonsense.
If you learned some science, you could avoid doing that.
More importantly...
You say
we have a supernova with redshift of z=3.8993And then you say
All the supernovas at any distance/age seem to be very similar.Which is plainly wrong.
If you red-shift something by a factor of nearly 4 it does not look the same.
That's how you know it has been red shifted.
So, how could it be that the "The rules of physics" doesn't work at the same way on any sort of radiation from the early Universe?They do.
The recombination radiation has been red shifted and the supernova radiation has been red shifted (by a factor of about 3.8).
It does "work the same way", but you don't understand the system well enough to see that.
Do you think anyone actually agrees with your idea that the laws of physics don't actually work?
Then you have to explain why, even though it breaks the laws of physics, your idea is right.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/11/2020 20:18:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:24:27
Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
All I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.
You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.
You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, not my job to prove that conventional science is right.
You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
Post by: evan_au on 29/05/2022 08:18:09
Quote from: evan_au on Today at 00:26:03
- Matter entering the event horizon is on a 1-way trip into the singularity.
- Once matter has reached the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
Quote from: evan_au on Today at 00:26:03
- Matter leaving the big bang is on a 1-way trip out of the singularity.
- Once matter has left the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
Why do you claim that it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from???
In my understanding, that is THE most important issue in the entire universe.
More than redshift, more than space expansion, more than relativity velocity and even more than the BBT itself.
Our scientists hope that the matter in the accretion disc is due to falling stars.
However they have never observed any star as it falls in and they would never ever find one.
They clearly know that around the SMBH there is a massive process of new stars creation - but unfortunately, they don't even try to understand from where the matter for all of this star forming activity is coming.
It seems that they don't have a clue how the SMBH really works and now you also claim that they don't care about it.
OK
I can just tell you that if they would understand how the SMBH really works - They would understand how the spiral galaxy works and why it has its unique shape including - Bulge, Bar, Ring and spiral arms.
The dark matter idea can explain at the maximum the orbital velocity of stars around the SMBH, but it doesn't give any answer about the full shape of the spiral galaxy
So the questions are as follow:
1. How could it be that we observe so dramatic changes in the accretion disc of a SMBH without discovering even one single falling star?
2. Why there is so high density of Hydrogen around the SMBH?
3. Why most of the new star forming activity is taking place near that SMBH?
4. Why the Bulge has spherical shape, while after the bulge we observe the disc shape.
5. Why the Bar / Ring are there and why they have so unique shape?
6. Why the spiral disc shape is formed only from the bar/ring all the way to the end of the spiral arms?
7. Why the spiral arm is so thick near the base (From the ring 3KPC - about 3,000LY) while it is so narrow at the end 12KPC - 15KPC (only 400LY).
Can you please answer all the above questions by using dark matter?
I can promise you, that if you would be able to fully understand how the SMBH really works you would solve the enigma of the entire Universe!
So please, would you kindly reconsider your following message?:
"it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from"
Modify message
« Last Edit: Today at 07:14:15 by Dave Lev »