0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
please post a quote so I can explain either that you misunderstood or that I mistyped something.
The size of the universe is very critical.So, as it is your toy universe, than I agree - let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.Therefore, R = 46 BLY.Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:The Total volume for R is ref to R^3Hence,V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3HenceThe chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:34^3/46^3 = 29.8%Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic. This also shows that the size of the universe is very critical.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 22/10/2020 21:32:26So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.Do you understand why I'm calling it a "toy"?What you have "proved" is something everyone but you already knew. You proved that a toy is not real.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 22/10/2020 21:32:26So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.
The proof of energy/ mass conservation is derived from a symmetry of the universe- specifically that the universe is symmetrical in time.At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.
But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.This was already explained to you.
According to you, "Theory D" starts with something which, according to you, is not true.You need to fix that or ditch it.
You even agree with me.
That is an interesting analysis .But it is addressing the wrong question. (It's also wrong, but that's a different issue)
It's also wrong,
Well, I have proved that a Universe in a size of 92 BLY is not real.
while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.
It could be a Tiny BH or a massive BH, but it surly can't be the whole matter/energy in the entire Universe.This idea is absolutely not realistic.
Are you being deliberately stupid?Post a quote of something I said that led you to the inaccurate conclusion that
Let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.Therefore, R = 46 BLY.Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:The Total volume for R is ref to R^3Hence,V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3HenceThe chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:34^3/46^3 = 29.8%Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:55:56while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.No, it is not.As we have explained.Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".This was pointed out to you before.Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:55:56while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.
Let me remind you:Theory D doesn't break any physical law.
We all agree that the first object after the Bang could be created out of Nothing.
Why is it so important if we call that Universe a Toy Universe, observable Universe or even BC Universe?
Yes or No?
Now do you agree that due to its EM and gravity, it can generate new particle pairs (Both with positive mass and negative polarity)?
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?
WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?
Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.That's not zero.So you have not proved that it is wrong.
If you look at a distant black wall on a foggy day, you don't see the wall, you see the fog.If you look at the edge of the universe, you don't see the edge, you see the CMBR.
So, if you can't set that basic math, how could you dare to ask me the following?Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:59:29WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?
At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.This was already explained to you.
As we have explained.Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".This was pointed out to you before.Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 29/09/2020 03:53:25please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/10/2020 05:27:40I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.
It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 15:02:32It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then lease offer the correct math.So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.
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.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:26Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 15:02:32It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then please offer the correct math.So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.Sure the correct maths is this"By inspection; not zero".
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:26Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 15:02:32It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then please offer the correct math.So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).You saidQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The 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.but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).
the correct maths is this "By inspection; not zero".
Theory D is just a name.
As a person that claims for deep knowledge in science, you must have some understanding in basic statistic math.If you were teacher in elementary school, and question was as follow:"Let's assume that you are located in a ball sphere shape with a radius of 46m.What is the chance to be located at a maximal distance of 12 m from the edge of the sphere."It is very clear to me that you would expect to get an answer that the chance for that is over than 70%.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).You saidQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The 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.but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
How is "edge of the observable Universe" supposed to make any sense in the first place?
Dave Lev is as usual arguing against his own misconceptions, not current science.
(Dave Lev, you never answered my question about whether you thought gravity assist ("slingshot") was literally "free".)
magine that the teacher said that he thought the answer was zero.
You are saying it's got a 30% chance of happening and so it is impossible.
It is very clear that you are not qualify for been teacher.
Would you kindly give an example.
Therefore, I agree that 30% is higher than zero,
So, once againQuote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).You saidQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The 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.but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
Let's assume that we are located near the edge of the Universe. What should we see?Don't you agree that we would clearly see that in one side the sky is full with galaxies while in the other it is almost empty?
Whatever the topology and size of the Universe, current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded. I expect you won't like that but that's a different issue.
In short, it's either infinite
or finite but unbounded
So you claim that the "current thinking" is that the Universe is unbounded.
The meaning of unbounded is unlimited.
So, if I understand you correctly...
How could you even consider that I wouldn't like it?
How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?Based on Google translate the meaning of finite is "limited". Not unlimited but Limited!!!
I expect you won't like that
If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address thisQuote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09So, once againQuote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).You saidQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The 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.but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?