0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So what is the real size of the entire Universe?
Yes, we can measure the Hubble constant.and it is constant everywhere.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Hubble-diagram-or-the-velocity-distance-relation-plot-for-type-Ia-supernovae_fig1_331983227The Hubble diagram or the velocity-distance relation plot for type Ia supernovae
The velocity-distance relation plots for freely expanding gas molecules (Figure 2 to Figure 6) are exactly like the velocity-distance relation plot for the receding large-scale structures according to the Hubble diagram; the molecules receding slowly are closer to us whereas the molecules receding faster are further away from us.
Hence, at any distance and at any direction from us the Hubble constant is always 70 (km/s)/Mpc.
Therefore, the value of Hubble constant should exists at any location in the entire infinite universe.
Hence, if we could jump to a point that is located at 10BLY from us
we would find that any galaxy that is located in the visible universe of that point has exactly the same Hubble constant.
1 Trillion years away and even in the infinity LY away
Therefore, as 1/H0 is the calculated age of the Universe, then the age of the entire infinite Universe is 13.8 BY.Hence, 13.8 BY ago, just after the Big Bang and the inflation the size of the entire infinite Universe was at the size of "grapefruit".
Therefore, as long as we all agree that the Hubble constant is equal everywhere - the Big bang should create our current infinite universe from a single bang.There is no other option!
Is it possible for the Big Bang to form Infinite Universe in a single bang that took place 13.8 By ago?
Hence, As you go further back in time, the density of all matter increases and the "bubble" that represents our observable the entire infinite Universe gets smaller.
It is not constant anywhere. It is approximately 1/t where t is cosmological time, and being a function of time, it is continuously changing, not a constant at all.
That graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much.
The visible universe was about the size of a grapefruit shortly after inflation. It was much smaller before inflation, but the Hubble 'constant' is entirely inapplicable until after inflation. The universe expanded at an exponential rate during inflation, but only at an approximately linear rate thereafter.
An infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate.
There are other options, which is why these things are 'unknown', and essentially do not matter.
However, it proves that there is a severe contradiction between the BBT calculations from that Hubble constant to our understanding.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 05:37:51However, it proves that there is a severe contradiction between the BBT calculations from that Hubble constant to our understanding.No, it doesn't and I don't understand why you think it does.
An infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate
However could it be that infinitely-large Universe can become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate in infinite time?
So, why can't we just release the cosmic time?
Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
I know that Dave will continue to post things that conveys a lack of reading comprehension of this information.
Yes, it is changing over time, but today it is constant everywhere.
"the "Hubble constant" itself is a misnomer. It has a value today that's the same everywhere in the Universe"So what is the meaning of everywhere?
Quote from: HalcThat graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much. Why do you limit the "everywhere" to only 2 BLY?
do you confirm that the current Hubble constant everywhere in the entire universe should be 70?
However, I still don't understand why do you insist that only the visible / observable universe was in the size of the grapefruit shortly after inflation?
Based on the BBT calculation for Hubble constant there is no limit in the size of the Universe.
So, why do you insist that only the observable universe can fit into that grapefruit size?
Could it be that you say this message as you do understand that there is a contradiction?
I assume that you mean that an infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate at a given time.
They don't say how they measure distance in that graph. There are many ways to do so, and they're approximately the same only for nearby objects. That graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much. But we see galaxies much further away than that, and distances become meaningless without specification of coordinate system used. My example object is GN-z11, a very distant galaxy. Some typical choices:1) Inertial coordinates: Only in inertial coordinates is light speed a constant c, and the coordinate system only applies to space that is more or less Minkowskian (flat), which is not true at large scales. In such coordinates, light can get from anywhere to anywhere else given enough time. There are no event horizons. The Milne solution uses such coordinates. Using such coordinates, the current size of the entire universe (relative to the inertial frame of Earth) is a sphere of radius about 13.8 BLY. Distances are measured along lines of simultaneity in the chosen frame. GN-z11 is about 13.5 BLY away, and the light we see now was emitted 6.7 BY ago.2) Proper distance, comoving coordinates: This is the only coordinate system where H0 is meaningful. There is no maximum speed for anything, so there is no problem with objects at arbitrarily large separations after finite time. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent comoving rulers at a given time) traced on lines of constant cosmological time.GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from only about 2 BLY away. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to acceleration of expansion forming event horizons.3) Comoving distance/coordinates: In these coordinates, light speed is a function of time (c/scalefactor). Most objects (galaxies) are reasonably stationary and their distance is fixed since the big bang. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent comoving rulers at the current time) traced on a line of 13.8 BY cosmological age.GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from a comoving distance of about 31 BLY. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to dark energy slowing light speed to the extent that it can never reach us.4) There is also the dubious light-travel distance, which isn't a valid coordinate system at all, but declares the distance to objects to be c/t from emission event. Light from GN-z11 was emitted from about 13.2 BLY away as measured by light travel time.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:07:46Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?You can, but so far the Big Bang theory is still the best candidate for explaining the observations.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:07:46Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:07:46So, why can't we just release the cosmic time?What do you mean by "releasing" cosmic time?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:07:46So, why can't we just release the cosmic time?
If you shrink the universe by half, then the density octuples, so it has by that measure an eighth the volume for any given set of matter.
The Proper distance, comoving coordinates & Comoving distance/coordinates are key elements in the BBT theory.
GN-z111. Redshift 11.09
2. Helio radial velocity = 295,050 ± 119,917 km/s (which is almost the speed of light).
3. Distance ≈ 32 billion ly (9.8 billion pc) (present proper distance)
≈13.4 billion ly (4.1 billion pc) (light-travel distance)
Do you agree that the understanding about the light-travel distance is fully based on the BBT concept that the space itself is expanding?
However, as we can only measure the galaxies and not the space itself ...In this example we clearly measure a distance of 32 billion ly. (we call it - present proper distance)
However, that measurement breaks the fundamental understanding of the BBT that the age of the universe is just 13.8BY.
Therefore, it is vital to "normalize" that measured distance to the total age of the Universe as stated by the BBT. In order to do so, it is stated that the light travel distance is 13.4 billion ly while we measured that the present proper distance (real distance?) is 32 billion ly.
Hence, could it be that the idea about proper/comoving close the gap between the real measurements to the requested parameters of the BBT?
So why do you kill any other candidate that could offer better explaining for the observations?
Do you agree that if one day we would discover that the real age of the Universe is 100Bly instead of just 13.8 BY
What about Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?
Would you kindly accept (for just one moment) the idea that the expansion is just in the galaxies while the space itself is fixed and there is no shrink in the universe space?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 19/05/2022 19:10:58So what is the real size of the entire Universe?Why did you put the word "so" in there?
As the BBT can only explain the observable universe size, while we do understand that the real universe should be significantly bigger than the observable universe - why can't we look again on the measurements without the BBT filtering?
Are you ready to give longer age to the entire Universe?
So would you consider a possibility that the BBT took place much longer time ago?
Why you are flexible for all the BBT problems, but show almost zero flexibility to the others?
Do you agree that if one day we would discover that the real age of the Universe is 100Bly instead of just 13.8 BY, then technically we could fully accept the idea that the real the measurements of 32 BLY fully represents the light-travel distance to that galaxy?
QuoteQuoteIs there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?Yea. You get redshift of 11 and not much more. Certainly no parallax. You need a model to get a distance from that.
QuoteIs there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 19:37:42Are you ready to give longer age to the entire Universe?If we find evidence that supports that, yes.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 19:37:42Are you ready to give longer age to the entire Universe?
The Cosmic Microwave Background is a reflection of radiation from all the galaxies around us.
Redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity.
Converting from redshift z to velocity v measured in km/sec is easy - the formula is v = c z.
We should focus only on linear relation.
Redshift can't give us any indication about the distance.
In general we can assume that the faster it moves the further it is located.
Hubble verified that there is some sort of correlation between the distance to redshift
Hence, redshift is all about velociy and it is a severe mistake to extract the distance from the redshift.
Based on that understanding we can't know the exact distance to that GN-z11 galaxy, however, it is still in a distance that we can observe.
If one day we would improve our tools, we might see other galaxys that are located further away (with higher or lower redshift).
It is not realistic to assume that galaxies that are moving away from us at 1100c (or higher) had been created just 13.8 By ago.
QuoteQuoteIs there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?Yea. You get redshift of 11 and not much more.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 19:37:42As the BBT can only explain the observable universe size, while we do understand that the real universe should be significantly bigger than the observable universe - why can't we look again on the measurements without the BBT filtering?There's no reason you can't, but like I said, those very measurements support the BBT.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 19:37:42As the BBT can only explain the observable universe size, while we do understand that the real universe should be significantly bigger than the observable universe - why can't we look again on the measurements without the BBT filtering?
QuoteQuoteConverting from redshift z to velocity v measured in km/sec is easy - the formula is v = c z.No valid coordinate system yields that figure, so this too is entirely wrong.
QuoteConverting from redshift z to velocity v measured in km/sec is easy - the formula is v = c z.
It's just a cheap Newtonian approximation for slow moving thing that shows only Doppler effect and no relativistic effects at all.
QuoteQuoteHence, redshift is all about velocity and it is a severe mistake to extract the distance from the redshift.Do you have empirical evidence (like Hubble does) that such a relation is wrong? You don't. So it's you making the severe mistake of ignoring empirical measurements.
QuoteHence, redshift is all about velocity and it is a severe mistake to extract the distance from the redshift.
The microwave background does not include any visible light.So we know you are wrong again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG
No. If it was moving that fast, it would have been here about 43 million years ago, so according to that bit of nonsense, the universe is only 43 billion years old when those most distant galaxies where here.
So, are you ready to give me the possibility to eliminate that BBT filtering?
Would you kindly give me the possibility to focus on Newtonian also for high velocity.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:07:37So, are you ready to give me the possibility to eliminate that BBT filtering?When a better theory comes along, yes.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:07:37Would you kindly give me the possibility to focus on Newtonian also for high velocity.Newton's equations don't give accurate answers at such high velocities. You need relativistic ones for that.
So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?
Please let me use Newtonian also for high velocity.
Once you give me the permission, I would explain how the entire universe really works.