[Origin]

Therefore:
1. Would you kindly highlight the major changes per date in the BBT versions?
2. Would you kindly tell us how BBT v.2022 can fit in all the parameters of the Universe from A to Z (including mathematics, CMBR, inflation process, dark matter, dark energy...)

Dave, you are the one who has this obsession with the 'evil' BBT so you should waste your time on this, not us.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dark Matter would have contributed considerably to the gravitational attraction in the early universe. But it's not central to the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_collapse_black_hole

It is not fully clear to me how that process works without dark matter.
There is no clear indication about the math that should support that kind of activity.
It is even stated:
"Direct collapse black holes are generally thought to be extremely rare objects in the high-redshift Universe, because the three fundamental conditions for their formation (see above in section Formation) are challenging to be met all together in the same gas cloud"
Could it be that it is so rare that technically it can't work?
Please be aware that we discuss about the conditions at era of 100,000 M years after the bang.
Based on the BBT, the first atom had been only created 380,000 My after the bang.
So, we actually discuss on an era when the conditions (temp, density, energy, ...) couldn't support the existence of even a single atom.
If I understand the BBT correctly, under  those conditions stars couldn't been formed at that era.
So, how could it be that while there is not even a single atom or a single star in the entire early universe, suddenly out of nowhere we get those kinds of massive black hole seeds?
Sorry - without real explanation and real math confirmation (and no dark matter) that process is just not realistic.

Let's assume that this process is real.
Why the same process can't form less massive black hole seeds?
Why not many BH or even infinite tinny black hole seeds?
Why significant portion of the particles that existed during the 100,000 My after the bang era didn't end in some sort of a BH?

I also wonder how those kinds of 10,000 solar mass SMBH seeds could be transformed into 1.6 Billion quasar in just 570 My.
We already know that the SMBH is messy eater.
https://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater."
So how that 10,000 solar mass SMBH seed could be transformed into 1,600,000,000 solar mass quasar in just 570 My (160,000 times bigger)?
If that process is real then what is the expected mass of the quasar after more 570 MY (at age of 670+570 = 1,240 MY)?
Could it be - 1,600,000,000 * 160,000 = 2.56 10^14 solar mass?

Actually by today (after more 12BY), that quasar should multiply its mass by 10^21. Hence:
2.56 10^14 * 10^21 = 2.56 10^35 solar mass
Is it real or just imagination?

[Bored chemist]

Could it be that it is so rare that technically it can't work?

No.
Because we see black holes.

[evan_au]

Based on the BBT, the first atom had been only created 380,000 My after the bang.

You are off by a factor of 10⁶.

According to BBT, the plasma cooled enough to form atoms around 380,000 years after the Big Bang (not 380,000 My).
- This is the era from which we see the CMBR.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on the BBT, the first atom had been only created 380,000 My after the bang.

You are off by a factor of 10⁶.

According to BBT, the plasma cooled enough to form atoms around 380,000 years after the Big Bang (not 380,000 My).
- This is the era from which we see the CMBR.

Thanks for the update.
However my following questions are still valid:

Let's assume that this process is real.
Why the same process can't form less massive black hole seeds?
Why not many BH or even infinite tinny black hole seeds?
Why significant portion of the particles that existed during the 100,000 My after the bang era didn't end in some sort of a BH?

I also wonder how those kinds of 10,000 solar mass SMBH seeds could be transformed into 1.6 Billion quasar in just 570 My.
We already know that the SMBH is messy eater.
https://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater."
So how that 10,000 solar mass SMBH seed could be transformed into 1,600,000,000 solar mass quasar in just 570 My (160,000 times bigger)?
If that process is real then what is the expected mass of the quasar after more 570 MY (at age of 670+570 = 1,240 MY)?
Could it be - 1,600,000,000 * 160,000 = 2.56 10^14 solar mass?

Actually by today (after more 12BY), that quasar should multiply its mass by 10^21. Hence:
2.56 10^14 * 10^21 = 2.56 10^35 solar mass
Is it real or just imagination?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Could it be that it is so rare that technically it can't work?

No.
Because we see black holes.

We clearly see that our SMBH is a messy eater.
The estimated age of that SMBH is at least 12By, and we also know its total mass - 4 10^6 solar mass.
Actually all the SMBHs are messy eater.
We see millions of them.
So we can easily calculate the estimate growth rate of a SMBH.
Let's assume that by average we get 4 M solar mass per 12BY.
Based on that understanding we can estimate the time frame that is needed for a SMBH to gain 1.6 B solar mass.
1.6 B / 4 M * 12 BY = 400 BY.
Therefore, when we observe a SMBH with 1.6 B solar mass, we can easily understand that the real age of that object is around 400BY.

However, our scientists would never accept the simple way.
I hope that it is very clear to all of us that the BBT is above any observation.
Therefore, instead of accepting the simple understanding that this most-distant-quasar age is about 400 BY, we try to invent some unrealistic "scenario" in order to keep the time frame of the BBT.

There is another (more common) option: Evolve.
- Tweak the theory to account for the new observations, making it an even more successful theory, but keeping the name the same.
- In Evolutionary terms, this makes the theory even more fit!

Sorry, "evolve" means updating the theory according to the observation.
However our puzzled scientists are updating the observation in order to fit into the requested BBT age.
Are you sure that this is the correct meaning of "evolve"?
Why do they nail the age of the Universe??
Why they are so afraid to understand that the age of the universe is significantly higher than just 13.8 By?
What kind of catastrophic would happen to us if the BBT took place 100 B or 400B years ago instead of 13.8 BY?

[Bored chemist]

However, our scientists would never accept the simple way.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:00:57
However, our scientists would never accept the simple way.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken

Do you say it about the current mainstream calculation?
Our puzzled scientists go on the very simple solution that is called the Hubble's Law
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p5.html
"You can actually calculate an estimate for the age of the Universe from Hubble's Law."
"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So,  t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."

I claim that there is a fatal mistake in this simple calculation.
Our scientists have no clue about the real size of the universe or its shape.
They don't know how far is the furthest galaxy from us.
So how could they get any real information about the age of the Universe from the galaxies in the space while they have no clue about the size & shape of the space?
I would like to remind you that if the universe is infinite, then by definition its age must be infinite.
Therefore, when they are using this unrealistic simple formula, they got a severe mistake.
It is like getting the size of a specific country from the age of the people that lives there.
So unrealistic.
How can anyone accept the idea that Hubble law without any knowledge about the space itself can offer real indication about the age of the Universe?
Sorry - that simple calculation is a pure nonsense!
Thanks again for your statement:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken

[Bored chemist]

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

Why would you like to remind me of something which isn't true?

I claim that there is a fatal mistake in this simple calculation.
Our scientists have no clue about the real size of the universe or its shape.

The calculation does not involve the size or shape of the universe.
So it doesn't matter that we don't know them.

So please tell us what you think is wrong with the calculation.

[Bored chemist]

How can anyone accept the idea that Hubble law without any knowledge about the space itself can offer real indication about the age of the Universe?

Because they made the measurements, and that's what the data says.

A better question would be why do you ignore the data?

[Bored chemist]

It is like getting the size of a specific country from the age of the people that lives there.
So unrealistic.

No.
It is not.

[Origin]

So we can easily calculate the estimate growth rate of a SMBH.
Let's assume that by average we get 4 M solar mass per 12BY.
Based on that understanding we can estimate the time frame that is needed for a SMBH to gain 1.6 B solar mass.
1.6 B / 4 M * 12 BY = 400 BY

So you have proved if you make a stupid assumption you get a stupid answer.  I'm pretty sure everybody already knew that.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The calculation does not involve the size or shape of the universe.
So it doesn't matter that we don't know them.
So please tell us what you think is wrong with the calculation.

Yes it does.
That exactly is the fatal mistake.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:59:48
How can anyone accept the idea that Hubble law without any knowledge about the space itself can offer real indication about the age of the Universe?

Because they made the measurements, and that's what the data says.

So please would you kindly show the data about the real size/Shape of the Universe space?
What is the distance to the furthest galaxy?

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:59:48
How can anyone accept the idea that Hubble law without any knowledge about the space itself can offer real indication about the age of the Universe?

Because they made the measurements, and that's what the data says.

So please would you kindly show the data about the real size/Shape of the Universe space?
What is the distance to the furthest galaxy?

Don't know; don't care.
Why did you ask me?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So we can easily calculate the estimate growth rate of a SMBH.
Let's assume that by average we get 4 M solar mass per 12BY.
Based on that understanding we can estimate the time frame that is needed for a SMBH to gain 1.6 B solar mass.
1.6 B / 4 M * 12 BY = 400 BY

So you have proved if you make a stupid assumption you get a stupid answer.  I'm pretty sure everybody already knew that.

Anyone that ignores the observation makes a stupid assumption.
Why do you think that we should ignore the clear observation of those messy eater SMBH?
Why do you think that the most-distant-quasar can eat its total food in just 570 MY while all the other SMBH that we clearly observe can't eat even 0.00...1 in a similar time frame?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Don't know; don't care.

As long as you don't know and don't care than don't tell that you know and care.

[Origin]

Anyone that ignores the observation makes a stupid assumption.

So stop doing that.

Why do you think that we should ignore the clear observation of those messy eater SMBH?

What do you mean by messy eater?

Why do you think that the most-distant-quasar can eat its total food in just 570 MY while all the other SMBH that we clearly observe can't eat even 0.00...1 in a similar time frame?

I don't think that.  Why do you think, "while all the other SMBH that we clearly observe can't eat even 0.00...1 in a similar time frame"?

[Bored chemist]

Don't know; don't care.

As long as you don't know and don't care than don't tell that you know and care.

Why did you ignore my question?
Is it because you know it shows that you are wrong?

Why did you ask me?

[Halc]

As long as you don't know and don't care than don't tell that you know and care.

Excellent idea. You obviously don't care to show any knowledge of science and don't care to appear to learn, so per your conclusion above, you shouldn't be telling us that you don't know and don't care.
So one chance: Why shouldn't I lock this topic?

[Bored chemist]

Why shouldn't I lock this topic?

Perhaps he should get a chance to explain why he thinks that because we don't know the size and shape of the universe, we can't use this maths

"the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t=D/v .
But, from Hubble's Law, we know that v=H0D .
So,  t=D/v=D/(H0×D)=1/H0 .
So, you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe."

which doesn't mention the size and shape of the universe.

I have to say I'm really quite curious about that.