0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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...)
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
Could it be that it is so rare that technically it can't work?
Based on the BBT, the first atom had been only created 380,000 My after the bang.
Quote from: Dave LevBased 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.
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 massIs it real or just imagination?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 05:44:28Could it be that it is so rare that technically it can't work?No.Because we see black holes.
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!
However, our scientists would never accept the simple way.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:00:57However, 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
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:00:57However, 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
I would like to remind you that if the universe is infinite, then by definition its age must be infinite.
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.
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?
It is like getting the size of a specific country from the age of the people that lives there.So unrealistic.
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
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.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:59:48How 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:59:48How 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?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 15:15:54QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:59:48How 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?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/05/2022 12:00:57So 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 BYSo you have proved if you make a stupid assumption you get a stupid answer. I'm pretty sure everybody already knew that.
Don't know; don't care.
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?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/05/2022 16:17:33Don'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 ask me?
As long as you don't know and don't care than don't tell that you know and care.
Why shouldn't I lock this topic?
"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."