0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It wasn't delivered to the Universe. It was already there.
BBT is not a creation theory any more than evolution theory is an explanation of abiogenesis. It does not posit something from nothing. It only describes the evolution of the universe from the initial singularity.
What other theory are you referencing?
Energy is a key issue in any object or theory.We can't move a finger without having real energy.That energy should come from somewhere.
1. Why can't we ask about the time before the bang? Why do we need to start from that point?
2. For how long it was already there? Is it just one second or infinite time?
3. Why can't we understand how the energy had created/accumulated?
4. If it was already there before the bang, then why it didn't bang long before?
Don't you agree that based on the BBT we are living in a space that had been created by the BBT due to the expansion?So as the BBT creates new space in the Universe why do you call it evolvement and not creation?
I still don't understand why do you insist that the observation proves that there is expansion in space while we can't monitor the space itself (only the galaxies as they cross the space)?
Based on this logic, why can't we technically start from any starting point that we wish?
I personally think that a theory without clear explanation about the source of energy can't be considered as real theory.
I personally think that a theory without clear explanation about the source of energy can't be considered as real theory.Somehow, energy must be created somewhere - even if you believe that it was already there.So please - If it was already there - please try to explain how it got there.
If you can't do so, then why don't we open our mind to another theory that can explain how energy could be created?
Don't you agree that it is our obligation to offer a solution for the source of energy?
Therefore, I refer to a theory that can explain how energy could be created out of something in our Universe.
We must remember that energy can't be created out of nothing.Therefore, as the BBT starts out of nothing - there is no possibility to get any energy under those conditions.
So as the BBT creates new space in the Universe why do you call it evolvement and not creation?I still don't understand why do you insist that the observation proves that there is expansion in space while we can't monitor the space itself (only the galaxies as they cross the space)?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 26/05/2022 19:52:57So as the BBT creates new space in the Universe why do you call it evolvement and not creation?I still don't understand why do you insist that the observation proves that there is expansion in space while we can't monitor the space itself (only the galaxies as they cross the space)?The reasons are many but the 2 most obvious are:1. All distant galaxies are moving away from us.2. The farther away a galaxy is from us the faster the galaxy is receding.
The only logical answer to these 2 observations is that space between the galaxies is expanding.
The Big Bang theory does not start out with nothing. As has been said before, it starts with energy and space already there.
If the Big Bang represents the beginning of time, then it doesn't make sense to ask about what came before
The theory of evolution obviously involves energy, but it isn't a theory about what that energy's ultimate origins are.
Since the Big Bang theory is an explanation for how the Universe evolved once it came into existence,
then it shouldn't have to explain it either.
If the Big Bang represents the beginning of time, then it doesn't make sense to ask about what came before. You can't go back before the beginning of time because there is no such thing.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:52:573. Why can't we understand how the energy had created/accumulated?Who knows? The Big Bang doesn't answer that question (it never had to).
If it was the beginning of time, then the energy was there at the same time as the Big Bang, not before.
If there was an infinite amount of space at the beginning of time and an infinite amount of space now, then the Big Bang didn't create all of space.
Because the alternative (galaxies travelling through space faster than light) violates special relativity.
Would you kindly explain the contradiction?
They don't say how they measure distance in that graph. There are many ways to do so, and they're approximately the same only for nearby objects. That graph goes only to about 2 billion light years away, so yea, it doesn't matter much. But we see galaxies much further away than that, and distances become meaningless without specification of coordinate system used. My example object is GN-z11, a very distant galaxy. Some typical choices:1) Inertial coordinates: Only in inertial coordinates is light speed a constant c, and the coordinate system only applies to space that is more or less Minkowskian (flat), which is not true at large scales. In such coordinates, light can get from anywhere to anywhere else given enough time. There are no event horizons. The Milne solution uses such coordinates. Using such coordinates, the current size of the entire universe (relative to the inertial frame of Earth) is a sphere of radius about 13.8 BLY. Distances are measured along lines of simultaneity in the chosen frame. GN-z11 is about 13.5 BLY away, and the light we see now was emitted 6.7 BY ago.2) Proper distance, comoving coordinates: This is the only coordinate system where H0 is meaningful. There is no maximum speed for anything, so there is no problem with objects at arbitrarily large separations after finite time. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent comoving rulers at a given time) traced on lines of constant cosmological time.GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from only about 2 BLY away. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to acceleration of expansion forming event horizons.
2) Proper distance, commoving coordinates: This is the only coordinate system where H0 is meaningful. There is no maximum speed for anything, so there is no problem with objects at arbitrarily large separations after finite time. Distances are proper distance (measured by adjacent commoving rulers at a given time) traced on lines of constant cosmological time.GN-z11 is a proper distance of about 31 BLY away and the light we see now was emitted 13.2 BY ago from only about 2 BLY away. Light from sufficiently distant events will not reach us due to acceleration of expansion forming event horizons.
Let me reuse this brilliant logic:Let's assume that we are living on a different planet.We have no knowledge about the Earth.However, based on our technology we can only observe houses in LA.Just houses. Nothing else. Not even the land.Based on our observation we see an expansion of houses in LA.We all try to find a solution for the expansion of houses in LA.More than that, we have discovered that in the last years there is acceleration in that expansion.One of our scientist even found the acceleration rate of the houses in LA.So, we all wonder how it could be that those houses expand so dramatically.After long discussion we have decided that the only logical answer for that is: expansion in LA land.Would you accept this brilliant logic???
You claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.So far so good.So why do we need a space expansion to prove that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.Please take a decision - do they move faster than light or not?
Don't you see the contradiction?
Sorry, if there was energy and/or space in the pre bang era
You can't ignore that era.
It is your obligation to fully understand the conditions/ process that creates the bang including its energy.
This is a big mistake.
Sorry - the expansion of the space creates new space. It is not evolvement - it is creation!
Sorry - you have to explain it all.You can't just explain the section that you wish.
As you claim that there was energy and space before the bang
We should know.If we don't know - then there is a fatal error in the BBT.
So, you specifically claim that the energy had popped out at the moment of the bang.
If it didn't create any space
You claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
If they are moving faster than light then the understanding that they do not move faster due to relativity is wrong.
If I understand Halc correctly,
So you clearly confirm that we measure ONLY the galaxies!
It is your obligation to explain the galaxies expansion without using the imagination that is called space expansion.
Unless - you can really measure the space coordinates of the Universe and prove this wrong logic.
If we don't know - then there is a fatal error in the BBT.
So why do we need a space expansion to prove that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.Please take a decision - do they move faster than light or not?
If I understand Halc correctly, the following CS is used by the BBT in order to find a solution for the H0.
So, the idea is that our scientists think that H0 sets the age of the universe regardless of its size.
the job of those commoving coordinates is to carry those galaxies
Hence, the universe must obey to the H0 formula.
Is it the observable universe or the real universe which could be infinite?
I do recall that Halc has stated that in order to get a size of one millions times the size of the observable universe - about 30 B years are needed.
The BBT is based on the Idea that the Energy is fixed
QuoteQuoteYou claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.Nothing can move faster than c relative to an inertial frame.
QuoteYou claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
Hence, with regards to distance that C moved away from A at a given time T, its velocity is:u = Sca / T = (v + u') T / T = v + u'
The formula is as follow:u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
Sca = Sba + Scb = v T + u' T = (v + u') T
If v=0.8c and u' = 0.7cu = 1.5c
Do you see any error in this calculation?
QuoteThe formula is as follow:u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)Interesting that you quote this formula but then don't use it.
You very much know it's wrong, at least for inertial frames.
From the frame of B it would true that C has a velocity u'.
Cosmological coordinates are not inertial, and the formula is different. It is an absolute frame, not a relative one, so Lorentz transformations do not directly apply.
However, don't forget that Einstein had called it the "relative" velocity and not the "real" velocity.
I assume that "Inertial" frames means - relative.
Don't you agree that it is perfectly OK that the "relative" velocity would be different from the real velocity that is based on real distance?
Do you claim that relative velocity means real velocity?
If you think that "relative" velocity means real velocity, then why Einstein didn't call it: The "real" velocity?
Therefore, we clearly observe galaxies that are moving away at velocities that are greater than c.
Why can't we assume that the Cosmological coordinates are fixed and the object moves at REAL velocity that is higher than c?.
u (relative) = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)u (real) = v + u'
The second equation is wrong. The relative velocities are real, so you have to use the first equation.
Now, would you kindly answer the following questions with regards to Real distance?1. What is the distance formula?Is it:S = V T2. What is the real distance that B moved away from A at a given time T?Is it:Sba (The distance that B moved away from A) = v T3. What is the real distance that C moved away from B at a given time T?Quote from: Origin on Yesterday at 20:15:16From the frame of B it would true that C has a velocity u'.Is it:Scb (The distance that C moved away from B) = u' T4. What is the real distance that C moved away from A at a given time TIs it:Sca = Sba + Scb = v T + u' T = (v + u') TDo you agree so far with the calculations of the real distance that C moved away from A in a given time T?Yes or no - Please.If so:5. What is the simple velocity formula?Is itV = S / T6. So, why we can't claim that:The real velocity of C with reference to A based on the real distance that it moved away at a given time T is:Vca = Sca / T = u (real) = v + u'Where is the error in this calculation?
Sca = Sba + Scb
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/05/2022 03:06:17Sca = Sba + ScbThere's your error. You can't just add those quantities together linearly when you have objects moving so close to the speed of light.
Sorry, it isn't a sum of velocities but sum of distances.
Where is it stated that it isn't allowed to sum distances?
So, in order to understand the situation let's assume the following:At t0 the distance between A to B is S1 and the distance between C to B is S2.Hence, do you agree that at t0 the distance between C to A is S1 + S2?However after given time T:Do you agree that B has to increase its distance to A by - Sba, while C has to increase its distance to B by - Scb?Yes or no please.If So, why can't we understand that after T the Total distance between C to A is:S (Total - ca) = S1 + S2 + Sba + ScaCan you please direct me to (Einstein, Lorentz or any) explanation that prevents the possibility to sum distances?