0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Is Einstein wrong or are you wrong?
Your conjecture states that galaxies can move through space faster than light. That clearly and unambiguously violates relativity. If your conjecture is true then you have falsified relativity. How do you explain this?
1. Inflation - The inflation is a direct contradiction with the relativity.Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:14:21based on the inflation theory, at the early phase of the Universe, the matter was very concentrated and located nearby while the expansion was faster than the speed of light.There is no way to get locally velocities which is faster than the speed of light. This idea contradicts with the Relativity. Therefore, the inflation is just imagination.2. Dark matterQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:14:21as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.However, In order to validate the Dark matter our scientists have used the" forbidden" cosmological constant that Einstein have set in his formula. They have totally neglected the simple fact that later on he had stated that this was his biggest mistake:"In many Einstein biographies, it is claimed that Einstein referred to the cosmological constant in later years as his "biggest blunder". The astrophysicist Mario Livio has recently cast doubt on this claim, suggesting that it may be exaggerated.[196]So till 1990 no one really consider to use this forbidden cosmological constant and there was no need for that as our scientists were sure that due to the BBT the expansion is slowing down.Therefore, In order to bypass that killing discovery, our scientists have decided to use that cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his request. Therefore, it is a clear violation on Einstein formula.So again, do you really think that you can change the history?
Maybe you should go study what relativity actually claims instead of straw-manning it.
Did you try to read my following explanation?
It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.
You are wrong
Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light.
As you know relativity much better than me, don't you see clear contradiction between relativity to the velocities faster than light in the inflation assumption?
So Einstein have told us in his relativity theories that in his compact and local universe there is NO WAY to get velocities faster than the speed of light.
This is a fatal contradiction with Einstein relativity theory.
That by itself knocks down the BBT.
Please show me where I am wrong.
If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age is then given by an expression of the formwhere is the Hubble parameter and the function F depends only on the fractional contribution to the universe's energy content that comes from various components. The first observation that one can make from this formula is that it is the Hubble parameter that controls that age of the universe, with a correction arising from the matter and energy content. So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the Hubble time, the inverse of the Hubble parameter. With a value for around 69 km/s/Mpc, the Hubble time evaluates to = 14.5 billion years.[6]
do you know that the Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic?However, our universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic. This was very clear also to Mr. friedmann.Therefore, in order to bypass this problem he had assumed that empirically, this is justified on scales larger than ~100 Mpc.Hence, you can't use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than 100Mpc.So, you can't just take the Universe at the size of 10,000Ly and set Friedmann equations which is relevant only for scales larger than ~100 Mpc.As you try to do so, you set a severe violation that is the base for the severe mistake at the age/size of our Universe.
So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
You and our science community have a fatal error in your calculation of time/age of the Universe.
"Please show me where I am wrong. I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light."
So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?Once you understand that, you have to agree that our scientists have fatal error in their assumption about age/size of the Universe
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
I still waiting for your answer:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 03/05/2020 06:06:08So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.The universe is changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with the size of the universe.If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it for smaller samples of the early universe.So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.
Can I just check on something?Have you abandoned the idea from your first few lines- the idea that the CMBR means that the universe is infinite.Because, if you have not, then your model is clearly not any better than the usual one and you are not in a position to "insist" on anything.SoQuote from: Dave Lev on 07/04/2020 19:10:15Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?On what basis do you claim that it is unrealistic?It is exactly what we would expect (and what was, in fact, predicted) from the very red-shifted black body radiation that arose from the early universe when the expansion cooled it to a point where atoms formed among a high density plasma.If the universe started off hot and dense then expanded, a CMBR is not just "realistic", it's inevitable.Also, if the universe had cold black walls, a CMBR would be inevitable.So there are at least two scenarios where the universe is finite, but there is a CMBR like the one we observe.So it is simply illogical to say that a CMBR implies an infinite universe.Do you understand the difference between these two statements?" a CMBR is consistent with an infinite Universe""a CMBR means that we have an infinite universe"The important difference is that only one of them is true.
Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?
Based on theory D, the hypothetical idea was that galaxies at the far end should move faster than the speed of light.
In any case, you surly can't now claim that ONLY the BBT can solve the contradiction between the observations to the relativity.
Based on the BBT and the expansion till 1990, our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down.DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT???
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.
Even so, in order to justify that dark energy our scientists add the forbidden cosmological constant to Einstein equation, while he has stated that this constant is its biggest mistake in his entire life.So, how do you dare to speak in the name of Einstein relativity formula, while on the other hand you set this forbidden constant cosmological in his formula?
The field equations of General Relativity indicated that the universe was not static. Einstein thought it probably was static so he put in a fudge factor to make the equation say the universe was static. Oops, he realized the universe was not static so he took out the fudge factor.
Recent measurements indicate that as of about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate.
The field equations of General Relativity did not reflect these observations.
A cosmological constant was added to the field equations to have them accurately reflect observations.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.False. Apparently, the BTT is another mystery to you. Hint: Dark energy is not required to have recession velocities exceed the speed of light.I
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.
That violates relativity so we can safely toss that conjecture out with the trash.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 03:31:57We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.It was never in doubt that the recession velocity of galaxy can exceed c, that has been known for decades.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 03:31:57We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 03/05/2020 16:01:48Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.Where is the article that says things move through space faster than light rather than that space itself is expanding faster than light?
"In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast.
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!
So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
So you have even confirmed it
That is totally incorrect.Our scientists only see that the farther a galaxy is located the faster it is moving.
As I have already explained, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real age of our universe
In any case, as Einstein had stated that this cosmological constant was his biggest mistake, than our scientists shouldn't use it in his formula under any circumstances.
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."So, our scientists in 1990 have assumed that the dark energy is needed to this acceleration.If now you have changed your assumption, than this is OK.But you can't change the history.If you do so you actually lie.
What an idiot.