0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.Am I correct in that?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:40:36If 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:40:36If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.
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 LyThe formula for the time is: T (n) = n x 12,000 Years.After n =33Radius (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 YearsTherefore, 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.
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
And I'm still waiting for you to answer thisI assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativityAm 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.
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
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?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:32:09Therefore, 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?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:32:09Therefore, 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?
The math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.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.
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, contribute 75Km/sec.
If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?
I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years". That means the following:H = 74 km/s/Mparsec.
That means the following:Expansion rate at 3 ly = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
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
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
I hope you realize 1,000,000 parsecs does not equal 1 parsec.So 74 km/sec/Mparsec does not equal 74 km/sec/parsec.Get it?
I hope that this time my calculation is correct.
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.
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 19:31:27As 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?
Well?
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?
Nope, that's wrong too. Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.
Thanks for that clarification.I wonder what happens if we continue the series6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.12 million About 300 KM/S12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.What a weird coincidence.
Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm
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 yearsLet's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.