1

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: Today at 06:51:49 »

So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?

If a better explanation for galactic recession is ever discovered, yes.

Please let me use Newtonian also for high velocity.

Well, you can, but it'll be wrong.

Once you give me the permission, I would explain how the entire universe really works.

As long as it's not Theory D.

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How do people survive lightning strikes?

« on: Today at 06:37:57 »

But my main question is how can a human body tolerate that amount of heat, even if only for a nanosecond?

Time is actually a very important factor here. If the exposure time is short enough, a normally fragile substance won't absorb enough heat to burn even if the temperatures are very high.

3

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: Today at 06:10:59 »

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.

Why not?

So, are you ready to give me the possibility to eliminate that BBT filtering?

When a better theory comes along, yes.

Would 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.

4

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 21/05/2022 05:04:36 »

So why do you kill any other candidate that could offer better  explaining for the observations?

We don't yet know of any.

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?

There's no reason you can't, but like I said, those very measurements support the BBT.

Are you ready to give longer age to the entire Universe?

If we find evidence that supports that, yes.

So would you consider a possibility that the BBT took place much longer time ago?

If we find the evidence for that, yes.

What about  Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?

I don't think there's evidence for it.

Why you are flexible for all the BBT problems, but show almost zero flexibility to the others?

Because the BBT has the best overall explanation so far.

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?

That would depend on the specifics.

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?

The galaxies themselves don't expand, so that wouldn't make any sense.

5

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 20/05/2022 06:52:02 »

However could it be that infinitely-large Universe can become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate in infinite time?

No, because such an infinitely-large Universe doesn't have some kind of boundary that can get smaller in the first place.

So, why can't we just release the cosmic time?

What do you mean by "releasing" cosmic time?

Is 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.

6

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 20/05/2022 05:48:27 »

However, 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.

7

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 20/05/2022 00:39:46 »

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.

An infinitely-large Universe can't become smaller if all of space is shrinking at a finite rate.

8

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 18/05/2022 20:54:02 »

So how can you claim that a theory for a universe that starts as a grapefruit size after the bang and the inflation, could perfectly work while at the big bang moment it is already infinite?

Because the "grapefruit size" thing only applied to the observable Universe, not the entire Universe. Let's not get those two things confused.

9

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 17/05/2022 22:05:01 »

That is incorrect as the density of matter in our real infinite universe is fixed over time.

Not according to the Big Bang theory, it isn't.

This could be correct ONLY if you shrink the observable Universe while there is no change in all infinite universe outside that observable universe.

Not so. All areas of the Universe would shrink more or less equally.

So, how we prove that only the Observable Universe shrinks?

There's no need to.

Now do you think that as we go further and further back in time, the Universe M could shrink to zero (or close to zero) in just 13.8 BY?

Possibly. It depends on the maximum possible density (whether or not that density is infinite). Universe M would have been an awful lot smaller at the Big Bang either way.

If not, then as the total Universe is infinitely-large at this point, it would still be infinite even if we shrink it by go back 13.8BY in time.

That was my entire point. It demonstrates how the Universe as a whole can be infinitely large at the moment of the Big Bang even though our observable Universe was still incredibly tiny.

10

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 16/05/2022 21:41:26 »

So, how that "gravitational singularity, a billionth the size of a nuclear particle" could suddenly be considered as Infinite space without breaking the BBT theory?
We also know that there is no empty space with no energy. Therefore, if the Universe started off with an infinite size then by definition it should have some sort of energy.

That does seem counter-intuitive at first, but a singularity of zero size would have made reference to our observable Universe, not the Universe as a whole. To help you understand, consider looking at it backwards through time. You start off with a universe of infinite size, with roughly the same (low) density everywhere. Our observable Universe is a sphere of limited size within this larger Universe. As you go further back in time, the density of all matter increases and the "bubble" that represents our observable Universe gets smaller. However, the Universe as a whole is still remains infinitely large because no degree of shrinkage can change that. So as you go further and further back in time, our observable Universe continues to shrink until it shrinks to zero (or close to zero) size at the moment of the Big Bang. The total Universe is still infinitely-large at this point, however. It's just that the density everywhere is infinite (or at least very, very high).

11

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 14/05/2022 21:54:15 »

I would like to remind you that if the universe is infinite, then by definition its age must be infinite.

Not so. If the Universe started off with an infinite size, then it would presumably still be infinite in size even if its age is finite. Let's not confuse the total Universe with the observable Universe. The observable Universe can have a finite size while the Universe as a whole can potentially have (and always have had) an infinite size.

12

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 13/05/2022 09:38:31 »

Once you make a change in the theory - you must make a change in the name.

Please provide an authoritative source that backs this claim up. I'm not aware of any organization of scientists that stated this.

13

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 13/05/2022 00:17:18 »

Real theory can set only one mechanism.

Provably wrong. In chemistry, for example, there are many different mechanisms that can form water. You can create it by burning hydrocarbons, through the joining of two monosaccharide molecules into a disaccharide, through the fermentation of glucose, through the reaction of a base with an acid, and so on. So there are many different mechanisms that can get you the same result.

Nowhere does the Big Bang theory state that black holes can only form through one mechanism (like the collapse of a single star). If you disagree, then provide an authoritative source that backs up your claim that the Big Bang does only allow one such mechanism.

14

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 12/05/2022 08:07:48 »

No, there is no different mechanism

How do you know that?

15

New Theories / Re: Does an Emitting Particle Contain the Emitted Particle?

« on: 07/05/2022 07:20:26 »

in my model there is no reason why an electron cannot contain a photon.

Why would it, though?

16

New Theories / Re: Wave Equation Of The Universe

« on: 03/05/2022 02:06:26 »

What does \Box? mean?

17

New Theories / Re: Does an Emitting Particle Contain the Emitted Particle?

« on: 02/05/2022 20:30:37 »

An atomic nucleus is a conglomerate of many particles. Some particles, like baryons, are composed of simpler particles called quarks. As far as experiments can currently tell, however, other particles like electrons aren't made up of anything simpler.

18

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 23/04/2022 05:47:58 »

It looks like Dave is turning this into a duplicate topic of his Big Bang threads. Would that count as derailment here?

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does the IVO thruster violate Newton's third law?

« on: 21/04/2022 17:30:18 »

I'd say I've never heard of it. Can you provide a link?

20

New Theories / Re: The theory of the human body special mass

« on: 19/04/2022 16:34:17 »

Because I try as hard as I can but nobody understands or accepts

We understand it just fine. What you are claiming is impossible.