0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 22/06/2020 08:53:02Are 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?
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?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 06:09:00In 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.
So it could be infinite or at least much bigger than this compact size of the Observable Universe
observable Universe is just a fiction
So, how the BBT could expand the early & tinny Universe into that infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?
For all we know, the Big Bang could have happened inside of a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe.
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 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?
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?
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.
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.
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...."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."
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
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."
What is the chance to set Infinite Universes at the same time while keeping a requested distance from each other?
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28If 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.
This makes it sound like new bangs happening at a location in pre-existing locations in space, which isn't how the theory works.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28What 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28What 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?
QuoteQuoteIn the other article they claim:https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary."This is written by an unknown non-scientist. There are many errors in it, and unbacked claims.The statement above says essentially: 'Maybe', which is a pretty weak assertion, and thus likely true.
QuoteIn the other article they claim:https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary."
Each multiverse contains potentially infinite universes, but 'infinite number of multiverses' is pretty meaningless.
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.
BBT makes no explicit claim about the size of the universe, so there's nothing to protect.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28How 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28How the BBT could start while the whole infinite Universe is already full with matter?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28So, 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28So, 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?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28Why 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28Why our scientists don't care about the creation process of that early infinitely-large Universe?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28Why 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28Why they don't offer any kind of creation theory for that early infinitely-large Universe?
QuoteQuoteThere 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.
QuoteThere might be infinite other Universes around our observable Universe.
As our scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang, how can we trust them to know if there was a big bang?
Are you sure that the Visible Universe is what we think?
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.
It is your obligation to verify the size of our real Universe.
Once you do it correctly - you should find the ultimate theory for our real Universe.
Do you agree that the only valid data is the redshift.
I don't expect you to understand that, since the idea behind curved spaces or hyperspheres appears to be something beyond you.
Actually, we could add the matter as a 5th dimension to the space-time.
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 -
Distance - The maximal distance to any galaxy from us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BLY
So, do you agree that we should call the Visible Universe -
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.
Let me surprise you.
I do understand the mathematical curvature in Minkowski space time concept.
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.
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.