0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?
However, if we had the technology for to detect further away heat energy, we could technically detect CMBR with redshift of above 1100.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 06:28:14So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?If a better explanation for galactic recession is ever discovered, yes.Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 06:28:14Please let me use Newtonian also for high velocity.Well, you can, but it'll be wrong.Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 06:28:14Once you give me the permission, I would explain how the entire universe really works.As long as it's not Theory D.
Please let me use Newtonian also for high velocity.
Once you give me the permission, I would explain how the entire universe really works.
QuoteQuoteWhat about Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?B_S suggests explosions of new material periodically occurring at random locations in existing space which would just form a black hole and not result in any matter at all. If anyone was actually capable of producing a new viable theory, they'd not be wasting their time posting it on a forum.
QuoteWhat about Bogie_smiles theory with regards to infinite bangs?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 06:28:14So, would you kindly let me eliminate also the idea of space expansion?Only if you can do it without saying things that are clearly wrong.
As long as you monitor my message base on the BBT filtering,
Your idea predicts that there's lots of long wave radiation along with the CMBR.There is not.So you are wrong.
The only one looking through a BBT filter is you.You are assuming that everything wrong with your idea is to do with the BBT.It isn't.Your idea would have been known to be wrong without a BBT.
How did you get to this long wave radiation idea?
if we had the technology for to detect further away heat energy, we could technically detect CMBR with redshift of above 1100.
I would like to offer you a solution
We have the technology, and we looked.But we don't see this figment of your imagination.If the redshift was bigger the wavelengths would be longer.
We have enough problems thanks.
Well, the BBT at its maximal ability - can only explain the creation of the observable universe.
If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.Do we agree on that starting point?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 09:06:00If we see a galaxy with a redshift of 11, then this galaxy is moving away from us at 11c.Do we agree on that starting point?No, that is not correct.Recession velocity = So for z=11, the recession velocity is 295,657,389 m/s.You know the recession velocity isn't >c because we can see the galaxy!
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2022 12:42:52Well, the BBT at its maximal ability - can only explain the creation of the observable universe.No, it can explain the creation of the Universe as a whole.
Sorry, how can they claim that "CMB do not have enough energy", while based on the BBT it was created when the Universe temp was 3,000K:
Recession velocity and cosmological redshift is based on the idea of expansion of space:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocityRecessional velocity is the rate at which an extragalactic astronomical object recedes (becomes more distant) from an observer as a result of the expansion of the universe.[1] It can be measured by observing the wavelength shifts of spectral lines emitted by the object, known as the object's cosmological redshift.The expansion of the universe is integrated part of the BBT.I consider that redshift is all about linear velocity stamp that comes with the far end galaxy lightWe can still see it due to relative velocity (with ref to the observer as explained by einstein)Never the less, even without filtering this request of the BBT we can go on.
If all the galaxies that we observe are moving slower than the speed of light
then why do they come with so dramatic change in their integrated redshift?
A variety of possible recessional velocity vs. redshift functions including the simple linear relation v = cz
Recession velocity and cosmological redshift is based on the idea of expansion of spacehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity
Again, if we can observe the galaxy then obviously its recession velocity is less than c.
Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe? So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?
The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe.
How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?
If I understand Halc correctly
a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.
How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?
Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe?
So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.?
If you start the bang while the infinite universe is already there, then is it already full with matter?
If you change the starting conditions of the bbt, don't you agree that it is a significant change in the theory?
If I understand Halc correctly, a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh.
So how can you create the observable universe from a bang while the universe size is already infinite?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35Do you mean at any size, even if it is infinity universe? Yes.Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35So is it possible that due to the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago the entire universe should be full with matter and in any space that we would be in that universe (even one billion of a trillion ly away) we should see a similar view as we see from our point in space.? Yes. Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35The bbt starts while there is no apace or matter in the universe. It doesn't say that. You can start off with infinite space at the very beginning. Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35If you start the bang while the infinite universe is already there, then is it already full with matter? No, because it would be far too hot for matter to exist.Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35If you change the starting conditions of the bbt, don't you agree that it is a significant change in the theory? Who said we were changing it? Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35How can we deliver energy to a universe that already is there?The energy was already there too.Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35If I understand Halc correctly, a bang in a universe that is already infinite in its size can only set a Bh. You don't understand him correctly. The Big Bang was not an explosion. Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35So how can you create the observable universe from a bang while the universe size is already infinite?It's not a problem because you misunderstood Halc.Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/05/2022 07:38:35How the idea of space expansion could work while the space in the early universe is already infinite?Quite easily. Infinity is unbounded. You can expand space as much as you want because infinity is not some kind of number that represents a physical limit for the expansion of space.
If I understand the classical BBT, there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.
That bang delivered almost infinite energy in infinite small space of the just born universe.
No one can ask how that infinite energy had been delivered to the universe that was not there.
In this theory, the space in the universe was already infinite with energy but without any matter.
1. What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?No atoms, no particles no quarks nothing at all.
2. Why that energy can't be transformed to real matter without the bang?
So, as the BBT can only reuse the existing energy/heat in that infinite universe, and as the bang took place at the entire infinite universe at the same moment, then how this bang can increase the energy/heat of the universe by even one degree?
3. I still don't understand how a bang that is using the current energy from the existing space can suddenly expand the space?
Therefore, is there any possibility for any sort of energy to set a bang which could expand the space itself without breaking the science law?
4. How a theory that can break any science law that we wish
(due to the idea that there is no space in the universe)
could be considered the same theory to the one that can't break even one tinny law of science as the space of this universe is already infinite?
Why do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?
If I understand the classical BBT
there was no universe, no space and no energy before the bang.
Now, let's move on to the universe with infinite space that was there long before the bang.
What kind of energy could exist in the infinite universe while there is no matter at all?
QuoteWhy do you insist to give them the same name while they are so different from each other?What two different things are you talking about?