Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 04:39:13

Title: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 04:39:13
Let's start with the following simple question:
What is the size of the Universe? Is it finite or Infinite?
In the following explanation from NASA, it is stated that the Universe is an "infinite universe expanding into itself?
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
How could it be?
I do recall that just few years ago our scientists have claimed that it is finite.
They even told us that the maximal size of our Universe might be 92 BLY (which is called - Observable Universe).
Few weeks ago I had been told that it is finite but unbounded which means a finite Universe without End.
Now it becomes Infinite Universe expanding into itself.

Dr. John Mather, Nobel Laureate and James Webb Space Telescope Senior Project Scientist had also stated:
"The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time."

However, in the following article it is stated that the Big bang started at singularity:

https://www.big-bang-theory.com/
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago."
Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity."

So, please:
What is the real size of our current Universe? Is it finite or Infinite?
If it is finite - Can you specify the real size?
If it is infinite – then how an infinite Universe could expand into itself?
How the Big Bang happened everywhere while it took place at singularity point According to the standard theory?
If it is infinite today, then how it could be at singularity 13.8 BY ago?

That issue of size is critical for the CMBR which had been set during the Era Of Recombination
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/firstLight.html
"This process of particles pairing up is called "Recombination" and it occurred approximately 240,000 to 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The Universe went from being opaque to transparent at this point. Light had formerly been stopped from traveling freely because it would frequently scatter off the free electrons. Now that the free electrons were bound to protons, light was no longer being impeded. "The era of recombination" is the earliest point in our cosmic history to which we can look back with any form of light. This is what we see as the Cosmic Microwave Background today"

If the Big Bang took place everywhere, then during the Era of recombination the Universe was already everywhere.
If it was already everywhere then how the expansion could reduce the CMBR temp while it was already everywhere as it was "infinite universe expanding into itself"

Don't you agree that if the Universe is infinite today - it must be infinite at the Big bang moment?
If it is expanding into itself - how that process could reduce the CMBR temp?

Sorry – If our scientists don't know even the basic understanding about the real size of our Universe, (finite or infinite), then how do they know for sure that the whole BBT is correct?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2020 05:59:35
If you didn't understand the Big Bang theory when it was explained to you in all of your other threads, you're not going to understand it in this one either.
Title: Yםו Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 08:54:06
If you didn't understand the Big Bang theory when it was explained to you in all of your other threads, you're not going to understand it in this one either.
That is correct. I don't understand the BBT.
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
One time they claim for finite Universe with a clear limited size and shape and after few years they consider it as "infinite universe expanding into itself".
So, how could they develop any sort of a theory for a Universe without clear understanding about its real size and shape?
Don't you agree that somehow our real universe refuse to fit itself into that Big Bang Theory which had been developed 80 years ago.
Don't you agree that if any theory starts with singularity, we can't just reverse it to start from everywhere or infinity?
Hence, if our scientists consider now that the Universe is "infinite universe expanding into itself" - why they don't clear the table from the BBT and look for better Theory?
Why is it so difficult for our scientists to look at our real universe without the BBT filter?
Why they would never ever give clear information about the Universe without adding the interpretation how that verification/understanding/observation fits into the BBT?
If they understand now that the Universe is infinite, why they can't say:  "We have discovered that our Universe is Infinite"?
Why they insist to add the BBT even in this discovery (by adding the expansion):
"infinite universe expanding into itself"
Could it be that even Dr. John Mather doesn't understand the real meaning of its own message?
So, how could you expect that I would understand how our Universe fits into the BBT, while the most specialized BBT scientists don't really understand the real size & shape of our Universe
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 07/11/2020 09:53:48
Quote from: Dave Lev
Why is it so difficult for our scientists to look at our real universe?
1. Because the most distant parts of it are severely red-shifted.
- That means you need a powerful infra-red telescope to see even the brightest parts of it (quasars).
- The long-overdue James Webb telescope will open up this part of the spectrum (if and when it is ever successfully commissioned)

2. Because the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation creates a horizon that we can't peer past with electromagnetic radiation

3. Because the kinds of radiation that can penetrate the CMBR (relic neutrinos and relic gravitational waves) are so incredibly weak that we can't detect them.
- In fact, we struggle to detect events that have happened in the past 100,000 years with neutrinos
- And events in the past billion years with gravitational waves

Quote
If they understand now that the Universe is infinite
They don't.

Some theoreticians think the universe might be infinite, but they can't prove it.
- If you can see only a finite distance back in time and space (ie only events within our "light cone"), you can't easily prove that something is infinite
- If you have an opaque veil across the universe that you can't see beyond, then you struggle to know about even a finite universe

Quote
how could they develop any sort of a theory for a Universe without clear understanding about its real size and shape?
You have it backwards.

With today's technology, scientists can't know the size and shape of the universe.

So all they have are a multitude of theories - and a hope that someday, some new experimental technique or some theoretical breakthrough will let them decide between these competing theories.

Basically all the common cosmology theories today incorporate some variant of a big bang, since it is the best explanatory power for what we see today.

Quote
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
I am sure that there are far less than 100,000 cosmologists on the Earth.
An expert studying butterflies in the Amazon does not pretend to be an expert cosmologist (and vice-versa).

Face it, your knowledge is poor - and the knowledge of expert cosmologists is considerably less poor.
- But there are boundaries to our communal knowledge - get used to it!
- Recognizing the limits of your knowledge is the first step to expanding your boundaries.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2020 10:31:37
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: puppypower on 07/11/2020 11:58:29
The second law implies that the useable energy of the universe has to decrease with time, since entropy has to increase and an increase in entropy absorbs energy. The energy is conserved, but not in a fully reusable form, The 100,00 scientists who study the universe leave this out. I question their theories since law supersedes theory.

The implication of the second law is there is a pool of dead energy forming, that has energy value but is tied up into entropy and is thereof not fully reusable by the universe. This means the universe cannot go on forever, since the second law implies the increasing entropy will eventually cause the universe to run out of useable energy.

One big problem is since light travels faster than matter, the signals may not express the impact of the growing dead pool energy on the matter that the energy represents due to the amount of time delay between the two.

Another question one may ask is the observed red shift due to motion or the movement of energy into the dead pool, or both? Red shifted energy causes the original energy to lower energy value in a way where some of the original energy is made unusable to the universe.

For example. if I was to start with a cylinder of compressed gas at temperature T, and allowed it to expand out of the cylinder, the gas and cylinder will get colder as entropy increases. This will show up as red shift in IR spectrum, even if the cylinder remains stationary and the gas is in motion way below relativistic speeds. We can retrieve the gas and compress it to restore the heat; reverse the entropy, but that will take work and increase entropy even mor for a net gain of dead pool energy and a net loss of reusable universal energy.

How does cosmology factor in dead pool energy? If it does not, why not? Without this consideration any theory would be flawed. Dead pool energy obeys energy conservation and the second law, with these two laws higher than any theory.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2020 12:12:44
The 100,00 scientists who study the universe leave this out.
No.
They write about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
One big problem is since light travels faster than matter, the signals may not express the impact of the growing dead pool energy on the matter that the energy represents due to the amount of time delay between the two.
That doesn't make sense.
Another question one may ask is the observed red shift due to motion
Yes it is
or the movement of energy into the dead pool
No, it's not.
For example. if I was to start with a cylinder of compressed gas at temperature T, and allowed it to expand out of the cylinder, the gas and cylinder will get colder
For an ideal gas, it will not.
For a real gas it will, but that's not an entropic effect.

This will show up as red shift in IR spectrum,
Not really, no.
How does cosmology factor in dead pool energy?
In great detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)#Cosmology
Which, if you knew what you were talking about, you would already be aware of.

Did you consider at least doing a quick google search of what's known before seeking to pretend that it isn't?
If it does not, why not? Without this consideration any theory would be flawed.
Doesn't apply, does it?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 15:45:58
With today's technology, scientists can't know the size and shape of the universe.
Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe.
If they don't know - then let them stay at the "don't know" black box.
However, I claim that they can easily understand the real size of the Universe.
The main problem is that our scientists insist to look at our Universe by the BBT filter.
1. Because the most distant parts of it are severely red-shifted.
- That means you need a powerful infra-red telescope to see even the brightest parts of it (quasars).
- The long-overdue James Webb telescope will open up this part of the spectrum (if and when it is ever successfully commissioned)
Sorry, even if we have the best powerful telescope which would detect a galaxy at a distance of 100,000 Bly away - it won't help.
The limitation is not in the instruments - it is in the mind of our scientists.
As long as our scientists insist that the maximal universe is 13.4 BLY they wouldn't be able to unleash their real understanding about our Universe.

Our scientists claim that an object with a redshift of 1.4 is located at a distance of about 9 BLY.
So, if the redshift is 1 it should represent a distance of about 6 BLY.
Therefore, it is quite obvious that if the redshift is 2 the distance should be 12 BLY.
If the redshift is 10 the distance should be 60BLY.

However, due to the BBT, those BBT scientists have decided that we can't see more than 13.4 BLY
Therefore, they have "normalized" the redshift so even if we get it at 1100 they claim for less than 13.4 LY.
This isn't science - it is science fiction.

This shows that the BBT has a full control on our observation and full control on those BBT scientists mind.

So all they have are a multitude of theories - and a hope that someday, some new experimental technique or some theoretical breakthrough will let them decide between these competing theories.
This hope isn't realistic.
They can't look at our universe by the BBT filter and hope that they have better understanding in the Future.
A redshift of 10 represents a direct distance of 60 BLY.
This is real science.
However, we are living today in the BBT universe.
Therefore, as long as our scientists keep the BBT limitation of 13.4 BLY on the table, they wouldn't be able to see our real Universe.
You discuss about hope, so I have A HOPE:
I hope that one day our scientists would look at the Universe without the BBT filter.
I know for sure that once they would be able to ignore the BBT (even for just one day) and set all the real data on the table, they will find the ultimate theory for that Universe.

However, if they can't do it, I hope that someone will do it for them as it's the time to take the science from those BBT scientists that can't breakout from the BBT chain.

Face it, your knowledge is poor - and the knowledge of expert cosmologists is considerably less poor.
- But there are boundaries to our communal knowledge - get used to it!
- Recognizing the limits of your knowledge is the first step to expanding your boundaries.
As engineer with a master in communication, I have deep knowledge in real science.
I agree that my knowledge in the BBT science fiction is quite poor, but that is my biggest advantage over those BBT scientists.
I have no obligation to the BBT fiction, while they can't move their head without approval from the BBT "master".

I have already proved that the Black body radiation in the CMBR tells us that the Universe MUST be infinite.
Now, Dr. John Mather from Nasa confirms my understanding about the Infinite Universe.
So, why do you ignore his message?
As I have already knew that the Universe is infinite - the science community have to offer me a reward for this discovery.
However, it is very clear to me that it won't happen as our BBT scientists prefer to lock themselves at the BBT black box forever and ever...

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2020 16:19:00
Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe.
True, but they can rule out some ideas- like yours- because it breaks the conservation laws.

I have no obligation to the BBT fiction
You seem much more interested in your own absurd fiction.

Therefore, it is quite obvious that
Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, obvious—and wrong.

BTW, you failed to address this.

Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


Please answer it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see your reply.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 20:53:05
.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:45:58
Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe..
True, but they can rule out some ideas- like yours- because it breaks the conservation laws.
In this thread we discuss about the BBT.
As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.

You seem much more interested in your own absurd fiction.
My own understanding is a direct outcome from the big black holes in that BBT. If that theory was real, no one in the whole Universe (including me) would even consider offering different ideas.

Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, obvious—and wrong.
In the case of the redshift it is 100% correct.
Just think about the following:
if each redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6 BLY, then as
1+ 1 = 2
then
6Bly + 6 Bly = 12 Bly

In the following article it is stated:

https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe.  The size of the observable universe, by definition, is the size given by assuming we can see to infinite redshift (where the recession velocity reaches the speed of light).  At infinite redshift, the factor involving z becomes unity and we have:
d  = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
    = (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc.                    (Size of visible universe)

That proves that those calculations are useless.
How our scientists dare to claim that "An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe" while we know that they don't have a basic clue about the real size of the Universe?

Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.
However, we clearly know that our Universe must be much bigger than that.
As Dr. John Mather from Nasa confirms that the universe is actually Infinite, that formula including all the BBT assumption should be set in the garbage.
The sooner is the better!!!

How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low ability
Therefore, you try to overcome your low ability by attacking other person.

In any case, your tactics are already clear to all of us.
You have no interest in real science. You have proved it.
You totally ignore all the evidences which I have offered.
You suffer from the internal illusions that you are the master of knowledge, while you clearly don't have a basic idea how to protect the BBT.
So, you keep attacking the personality of the other person instead of offering real answers.
It is very clear that there is no science in your messages.

It's time for you to consider psychological treatment for yourself.
The sooner is the better for you!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2020 21:09:51
As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.
That does not make sense.

It's like saying that because I can't tell what the weather will be tomorrow, I shouldn't set the alarm clock.

Why do you make nonsensical statements like that?
My own understanding is a direct outcome from the big black holes in that BBT.
You have completely failed to show any problems with the BBT.
On the other hand you have shown that you do not understand it.


Just think about the following:
if each redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6 BLY, then as
1+ 1 = 2
then
6Bly + 6 Bly = 12 Bly
I thought about it.
Imagine you are tiling a floor.
You know that a room that a room which is 6 feet square takes 36 tiles and you know that 6+6  = 12
So a room that is 12 feet by 12 feet will take 36 + 36 , i.e. 72 tiles.

Except it doesn't because areas are non linear- like red shifts.

This is a clear example that you do not understand the physics so you make silly mistakes.

That's why I think you are exhibiting D K syndrome.
Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low ability
That's a complete non sequitur.
I have, at least in the field of science, a lot of ability.
I'm a published author and I get paid more than the national average salary to do science.
So, with good reason, I don't have anything "due to your low ability".
You totally ignore all the evidences which I have offered.
All you have offered proof of, is your own inability to understand science (and, indeed, simple logic).
while you clearly don't have a basic idea how to protect the BBT.
I don't feel that I need to protect it.
As I have said before, I don't care if it gets replaced. In fact, I will be pleased because it will mean that science is making progress.

So, you keep attacking the personality of the other person instead of offering real answers.
No, I'm not attacking your personality.
I'm pointing out that you do not know what you're talking about.
That's really not the same thing.
It is very clear that there is no science in your messages.
Yes there is science there .
It's just you can't understand it because... let's face it, you aren't bright enough.
It's time for you to consider psychological treatment for yourself.
The one who, in spite of having no scientific training, thinks that he knows better than all the scientists in the world is the one who needs medical help.

BTW, you forgot to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:31:37
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:54:06
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


Please answer it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see your reply.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/11/2020 11:44:21
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:53:05
As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.
That does not make sense.
You should improve your sense.

So, let me ask you step by step:
1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
In the following explanation from NASA, it is stated that the Universe is an "infinite universe expanding into itself?
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
Dr. John Mather, Nobel Laureate and James Webb Space Telescope Senior Project Scientist had also stated:
"The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time."
Yes or No?

2. As, our scientists from Nasa consider that the Universe is infinite, how could it be that based on the BBT math, the maximal size of the Universe is only 15.329349752BLY?

In the following article it is stated:

https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe.  The size of the observable universe, by definition, is the size given by assuming we can see to infinite redshift (where the recession velocity reaches the speed of light).  At infinite redshift, the factor involving z becomes unity and we have:
d  = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
    = (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc.                    (Size of visible universe)

That proves that those calculations are useless.
How our scientists dare to claim that "An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe" while we know that they don't have a basic clue about the real size of the Universe?

Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.

If your sense doesn't help you to understand the contradiction in the BBT, I really can't help you.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2020 11:55:45
You should improve your sense.
No.
You should write proper sentences.
Try again.
1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
I don't know and I don't care.
Why are you trying to set up an argument from authority?
Don't you realise that logical fallacies are  invalid?
2. As, our scientists from Nasa consider that the Universe is infinite, how could it be that based on the BBT math, the maximal size of the Universe is only 15.329349752BLY?
That's just bollocks.
The visible universe is nearly 4 times as big.
So you are pretending the BBT says things that it does not say.
You are either not understanding it, or you are lying.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are honest.
In which case you are plainly mistaken.
And again, the grown-ups are thinking "clearly D K syndrome".

If your sense doesn't help you to understand the contradiction in the BBT, I really can't help you.
You could start by pointing out what you think those contradictions are.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/11/2020 13:49:57
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:44:21
1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
I don't know and I don't care.
Ok
As you don't care about important information from NASA, then I don't care about all your messages.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2020 14:44:20
Ok
As you don't care about important information from NASA, then I don't care about all your messages.
But the information is not important.
For a very good reason; nobody knows if it's true.
He may work for NASA, but he still can't see beyond the visible universe.
He can't see if it is infinite or not.
So he can not tell you if there are unicorns out there.
So I don't need to worry about what he thinks.


Do you understand that?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/11/2020 05:21:25
nobody knows if it's true.
He may work for NASA, but he still can't see beyond the visible universe.
He can't see if it is infinite or not.
So he can not tell you if there are unicorns out there.
So I don't need to worry about what he thinks.
How do you dare to call Dr John which is Nobel Laureate as Nobody?
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this  new understanding for infinite universe.
I have full confidence that this understanding is a direct outcome from the most updated discovery at that NASA' telescope.
Please be aware that there is no question mark in that statement of infinite Universe.
He clearly claims for infinite Universe.
Therefore, as NASA fully supports Dr John and his team in the understanding that the Universe is infinite Universe, then the Universe must be Infinite.
For long time I clam that our Universe is infinite.
You and all the other BBT scientists were sure that this is unrealistic.
You all have considered me as nobody.
Now when NASA supports my understanding for infinite Universe - you call them nobody.
Shame On you.

You can't be considered as real scientist.
You have proved that you don't care about real science. You only care about BBT.
Therefore, you are a member in the "BBT scientists" choir.
You all would do whatever it takes to keep the BBT song forever and ever.

As you don't care about Dr John and his scientist team at NASA and as you does not care about real science - I really don't care about your messages any more!

Please stay away from my threads!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: pzkpfw on 09/11/2020 08:06:28
...
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this  new understanding for infinite universe. ...

Are you going to pick and choose what science supported by NASA you agree with? They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

(Your apparent misunderstanding of the use of "nobody" by Bored chemist is quite odd. Was that actually some kind of sarcasm by you?)
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2020 08:44:48
How do you dare to call Dr John which is Nobel Laureate as Nobody?
I didn't.


What I said was that nobodys knows if he is correct. (because nobody knows what's outside the visible universe,)
So most of your post was a rant about you not being able to read.

Learn to read; you will find it very helpful.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2020 08:45:48
(Your apparent misunderstanding of the use of "nobody" by Bored chemist is quite odd. Was that actually some kind of sarcasm by you?)
I think he deliberately"misunderstood" it so he could get stupidly shouty and not have to actually answer any questions.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/11/2020 10:24:50
...
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this  new understanding for infinite universe. ...

Are you going to pick and choose what science supported by NASA you agree with? They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang


It is very clear to me and to all of us that NASA and all their scientists fully support the BBT.
Even Dr John and his team fully support the BBT.
However, they have an obligation also for real science.
As they all know by now that the real science means - Infinite Universe, they were obliged to give us this message.
Never the less, in order to keep the BBT alive, Dr John has stated the following:

"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."

So, he doesn't claim that the BBT is incorrect, but he clearly claims that the Universe is infinite.
However, they all clearly know that the BBT is a theory for a finite universe.
I have proved that based on the BBT Math the maximal distance of any object (even if it has an infinite redshift) is only about 15 BLY.

Therefore, he came with a brillient idea of:  "infinite universe expanding into itself."
In that message he tells us that the Universe is infinite, but on the same message he tells us the the BBT is still alive.

However, it is very clear to me that he has no clue about the meaning of "expanding into itself" as it is just a message without any real validity.

So, NASA does understand that based on their most updated observations the Universe must be Infinite.
That understanding had been clearly delivered by Dr John.
It is also very clear to me that Dr John and most of the BBT scientist all over the planet try now to find a solution for that contradiction.
Their main task today is to fit the Infinite Universe into the BBT.
Therefore, Dr John also gave us a clue from the information to come as he stated:
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see."
So, they might even change the name of the BBT in order for it to fit in infinite Universe.
Dr John doesn't want to kill the BBT by his direct discovery that the universe is Infinite, but he tries to envelope that discovery/understanding  about the infinite Universe in some sort of idea that would keep the BBT alive.

In any case, I claim that the BBT can't live any more in infinite Universe.
It is a theory for a limited size Universe (15BLY maximal redshift size) and the whole math is based on this size.
Therefore, as NASA team have found that the Universe is clearly infinite, while the whole BBT is based on a math for a finite Universe, that BBT should be set in the garbage.

Any scientist who believes in real science must understand by now that the BBT is useless theory for infinite Universe.

However, as the science of astronomy is in the hand of BBT scientists, I'm quite sure that somehow Dr. John and all the other BBT scientists would find the way how to change the BBT' math in order for it to live under that breakthrough discovery of infinite Universe.
So as long as the astronomy science is under the control of those BBT scientists, the BBT would stay with us under any sort of new discovery that contradicts the BBT.
Nothing would be able to knock it down
Not even Dave Lev.
It is fully protected by those BBT scientists!!!

So you are fully correct
"They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory."  Forever and ever!!!

 

 
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2020 11:18:15
I have proved that based on the BBT Math the maximal distance of any object (even if it has an infinite redshift) is only about 15 BLY.
That's still not true.
The observable universe is about 4 times bigger.
Why are you trying to repeat this lie?
It is a theory for a limited size Universe (15BLY maximal redshift size) and the whole math is based on this size.
No
The theory does not actually depend on, or predict the size.
You need observations to do that.
The stated size agrees with the observations (and the idea of an infinite universe hasn't agreed with any theory since Olber's day.)
Any scientist who believes in real science must understand by now that the BBT is useless theory for infinite Universe.
It works just fine for a finite observable universe .

So as long as the astronomy science is under the control of those BBT scientists
There's no such thing as a "BBT scientist".
There are scientists and there are people like you who ignore the laws of physics and pretend that an infinite universe is possible.
Such a universe would collapse under its own weight.
Do you not see that?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 09/11/2020 14:27:34
Quote
Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
I've not read his work.
But it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite".
That means he has come up with a theory (which he cannot prove at this time) that the Universe may be infinite.

That hypothesis is not necessarily incompatible with the Big Bang.

Quote
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
As of now, that NASA telescope is sitting on the ground, all folded up, waiting for the COVID-19 pandemic to pass so they can finish preparing it for launch.

It is a very complicated piece of equipment, and unfortunately, it suffered a "big bang" event of its own while undergoing vibration tests back in 2016. Some of the fittings broke loose. Better that it happened on the ground, rather than during the real launch!
See: https://spacenews.com/no-damage-to-jwst-after-vibration-test-anomaly/

Quote
Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.
However, we clearly know that our Universe must be much bigger than that.
We do know that the universe is larger than this. And this is alluded to in the last sentence on the page that you linked to...
Quote from: Paper published in the year 2000
Note that if the expansion universe were to ... speed up, galaxies currently in our visible universe would leave it!
We now have considerable evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and this is convincing enough that the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for this discovery. So the "Hubble Constant" assumed in your calculation is not a constant, and the distance calculated by your equation is an underestimate.

How much of an underestimate, nobody is quite sure as yet...

Measuring the redshift of distant galaxies is relatively easy compared to measuring their distance. But a number of surveys are continuing this search in an attempt to refine estimates of the cosmological acceleration. At present, it appears to be a reasonable fit to the "cosmological constant" in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (but with a very different value than he originally assigned to this constant). 

So Big Bang theorists agree that the universe is bigger than you calculated. But whether it is infinite is a whole other question.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

The highest redshift we can observe with light is the CMBR, which was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K, and now has a redshifted temperature of about 2.7K, a redshift of around 1000:1.

Some scientists are hopeful that they may be able to measure the expansion of the universe with new techniques using more sensitive gravitational wave detectors to measure the distance and time dilation of black hole collisions.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 09/11/2020 17:50:35
Quote from: Dave
[Mather] is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
That telescope is yielding no data, so your statement is true to a fashion. His position makes him a sort of engineer more than anything, being in charge of implementing/deploying the device, not operating it once it has been put into operation.
He actually does look through the things, as evidenced by the Nobel prize, but the position as described for this project is portrayed more as the engineer than the scientist.

Quote
Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY
This quote is from a source of unknown origin. I see it copied on many sites, but I cannot find the original.
First of all, a figure to 3 significant figures cannot yield one of 10.5 significant digits.  The article does not state the latter figure, so that mistake is yours.  Secondly, the distance computed does not specify the coordinate system used.  It appears to use light-travel-time, which is only meaningful in a flat Minkowski coordinate system, which does not correspond to the universe. Better (accepted) figures below.

And to emphasize what Evan says in the prior post, none of this has anything to do with the size of the universe any more than the size of a jail cell in which you spend your life has an bearing on the size of the jail.

We do know that the universe is larger than this. And this is alluded to in the last sentence on the page that you linked to...
Quote from: Paper published in the year 2000
Note that if the expansion universe were to ... speed up, galaxies currently in our visible universe would leave it!
That is another mistake in that text. Something leaving the visible universe is not a function of the expansion rate. The visible universe (estimated current radius of 46 BLY proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time) is a property of an event (Earth, here, now) and refers to comoving distance to the worldline of a comoving object currently on our particle horizon.  That’s a lot more than 4.17 Gpc.
Changes to the expansion rate of the universe cannot effect a galaxy entering or leaving that radius.  Only a deviation from being a comoving object can.  So it would be more correct to say that any galaxy near that radius with recessional peculiar velocity (which isn’t a function of the expansion rate) might leave our visible universe. There’s no way that galaxy is visible to us. That’s not what the term ‘visible universe’ means.

What the paper appears to be talking about is the event horizon. (defined for a worldline, not an event).  The event horizon delimits the set of events in the universe that can ever have a causal effect on said worldline (typically that of Earth) given infinite time. The size of that is a bit over 16 BLY, and would be infinite if the expansion rate was not accelerating at all.
An accelerating expansion rate (which is different than a Hubble ‘constant’ that is increasing) can cause a comoving object to cross the event horizon. All the most distant objects that we see today have done this. GN-z11 for instance is currently twice that distance, having crossed the event horizon nearly 10 BY ago, but the image we see of it is from back when it was inside that horizon.

Quote
So the "Hubble Constant" assumed in your calculation is not a constant, and the distance calculated by your equation is an underestimate.
It was never a constant, but just something that is known to so few digits (just one) that it effectively isn’t going to change during the history of humanity.  If the scale factor was linear (constant expansion), then the Hubble ‘constant’ would be exactly 1/age-of-universe, which is amazingly close to what it is today.  The ‘constant’ is currently about 70 km/sec/Mpc, and is projected (FLRW model) to settle down to an actual eventual constant of about 57 km/sec/Mpc in the long run.  It would forever decrease as an inverse of time without dark energy.
This Hubble constant defines a Hubble-Sphere, which is yet another measure of the size of the universe, defined as the radius beyond which a comoving object recedes from some worldline (Earth) at a rate greater than c.  That radius is about 14 BLY give or take.

Finally, there is the size given by the proper distance from a worldline passing through event X (Earth today) to any event that can possibly have had a causal effect on us.  This radius is under 6GLY, meaning no light that has ever been 6GLY away from us has ever reached us.  The universe could simply end there and we would not be able to detect it.  This radius increases with time as light from those more distant events is given time to reach Earth’s worldline.  At t=infinity, this radius merges with the event horizon.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/11/2020 19:29:27
Quote
Quote
Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
I've not read his work.
But it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite".
That means he has come up with a theory (which he cannot prove at this time) that the Universe may be infinite.
That hypothesis is not necessarily incompatible with the Big Bang.
Well, if you didn't read his article then how do you know that it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite"?
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
I didn't find any hint for "hypothesize" in that article. Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.
Dr John has surly deep knowledge in science. As NASA' senior scientist he is well aware about all the observation data from the current operated telescopes.
He also well aware that he represents NASA and his article is published at NASA web site.
Therefore, as he has full confidence in the idea of Infinite Universe, there is good chance that he has key information which convinced him that our Universe is infinite.
I agree that his idea by itself won't convert the Universe into infinite Universe.
However, I have found one more article which could support that idea:
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning
https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
In this article it is stated that the Big Bang is under fire as
" In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached."
They also add:
"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.
There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled."
"Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time."

The outcome is:
" In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old."

So, in this article our scientists have found that our Universe is infinity old

They do not claim directly for infinite Universe.
However, an infinite old Universe might leads to infinity Universe.

So, Dr John might base his understanding for Infinite Universe also on this kind of article.

Therefore, even if you don't like the idea of infinite Universe, you have to agree that it is feasible.

The highest redshift we can observe with light is the CMBR, which was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K, and now has a redshifted temperature of about 2.7K, a redshift of around 1000:1.
Why do you claim in so high confidence that the CMBR "was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K,"
Can we really measure that temp?
Don't you agree that it is just a conclusion due to the BBT?
So, when you discuss about hypothesized:
hypothesized
This is the real hypothesized idea as we can't measure that high temp today.
So, we have to say:
Based on the BBT, the hypothesized idea is that the CMBR was emitted at the era of recombination at a temperature of around 3000K

We now have considerable evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating
No,
we have no evidence for Expansion in space of the Universe.
All we see are galaxies.
We only see expansion in galaxies and not expansion of the Universe.
So, the expansion in the Universe is one more hypothesized idea of our scientists.
Therefore, our scientists had to claim that the expansions of the Galaxies are accelerating and not the expansion of the Universe itself.
That statement by itself is misleading information by our scientists.

Measuring the redshift of distant galaxies is relatively easy compared to measuring their distance.
Redshift is all about velocity.
However, based on the BBT our scientists have limited the maximal distance of the redshift.
They claim that even at infinite redshift, the maximal distance is 15 BLY.

Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.
Also the redshift of 1100 in the CMBR proves that it comes from very far away location
I really can't understand based on what real physics law our scientists are using a redshift of a galaxy in order to determined its age

So why our scientists are so sure that the CMBR is an echo from the early days of the Universe.
Why can't we just assume that the CMBR is due to the radiation of our current Universe (Finite or Infinite)?
Why the redshift can't represents unlimited velocity/distance in our Universe.
Why do we insist to limit that size of our universe by that Hubble size of about 15 BLY?
Why an infinite redshift can't represent an infinite velocity/distance?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2020 19:52:27
Well, if you didn't read his article then how do you know that it is it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite"?
Because we know what a hypothesis is.

Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.
He may well be confident, but it hasn't been proved, so it's hypothetical.
Did you not understand that?


you have to agree that it is feasible.
And that, you nitwit, is what a hypothesis means.

Can we really measure that temp?
Yes.
Hydrogen is still hydrogen.
We can measure the temperature of a hydrogen plasma in the lab today.
This one, for example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_arc_lamp
There's a picture of the spectrum. The bit that corresponds to the plasma (give or take some minor corrections) is the peak near the left hand end.
It's at about 250nM

And you can feed that into this calculator
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
to get the plasma temperature- it's about 11500K
Rather hotter than the recombination temperature- but that's because they drive the lamps hard to get as much light  (and as short a wavelength) as possible.

Now it's interesting to note that I know things like that and you clearly don't- or you wouldn't have needed to ask the question.

So it's clear that your views...


Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low ability
Therefore, you try to overcome your low ability by attacking other person.
about my ability are wrong.
I'm the one who knows  stuff; not you.

No,
we have no evidence for Expansion in space of the Universe.
All we see are galaxies.
And some of them "look like" they are travelling at more tan the speed of light- which is impossible.
So they must be in space that is moving away from us.

Again this is an example of a thing I understand, but you don't. Because you are the one with D K syndrome here.


Even at infinite redshift, the maximal distance is 15 BLY.
You did the wrong maths - you do that a lot.
It might be because you can't get it right, or it might be because you know that the right maths shows that you are wrong, so you refuse to look at it.

Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.
No.
I proved that you can get the same CMBR in a toy universe which is finite.
Please remember – redshift is all about distance.
It's mainly about the expansion of space.

I really can't understand based on what real physics law our scientists are using a redshift of a galaxy in order to determined its age
Then go away and learn.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/11/2020 03:16:11
1. Hypothetical Idea
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27
Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.
He may well be confident, but it hasn't been proved, so it's hypothetical.
The BBT also hasn't been aproved, so how shall we know in which scientist we have to trust?
How could it be that when one group of scientists claims that the Universe is infinite in its size or in its age - this is hypothetical, while when the other group claims that the Universe is finite in its age and size then this is real science?

2. Temp
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27
Can we really measure that temp?
Yes.
Hydrogen is still hydrogen.
We can measure the temperature of a hydrogen plasma in the lab today.
How do we know that 13.4By ago the entire Universe was full ONLY with hot  hydrogen plasma?
Actually, based on the BBT, we observe some very far away galaxies that their estimated age is over than 12 BLY.
At that time (based on the BBT) the Temp of the Universe was still very high.
So, do we really see any signs of ultra high temp from those far away galaxies?
If we don't see, then the BBT is not just a hypothetical idea but totally unrealistic.

3. Expansion the space-
As I have already explained, we only see the expansion of galaxies and not the expansion in the Universe space.
The assumption that the space itself can expand is one of the biggest mistake of the modern science.
There is no way to increase the whole Universe space or decrease it.
The space in our Universe is fixed at any given moment and it must go to the infinity.
Therefore, I would like to see a real science law that permits the imagination of increasing or decreasing the whole space. (Please not BBT fiction math)
As the Universe space is fixed - forever and ever, we can wonder if the matter and the galaxies in our infinite universe space also go up to the infinity.
So, the question about the infinity should be as follow:
Could it be that there are galaxies up to the infinity or the galaxies are located at a finite size in the infinite Universe space?

4. Infinite Old Universe
In the following article our scientists prove that the idea of singularity isn't realistic and the Universe should be infinite Old.
Universe May Have Had No Beginning
https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
In this article it is stated that the Big Bang is under fire as
" In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached."
They also add:
"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.
There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled."
"Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time."

The outcome is:
" In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old."
So, in this article our scientists have found that our Universe is infinity old
If this calculation is correct, then the BBT with its limited age of 13.8 BY should be set in the garbage.

5. Redshift -
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!
Quote
It's mainly about the expansion of space.
Please prove it by real science law!
In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.
That transformation is a pure fiction as it violates the science law.
When we observe a far away galaxy with high redshift, that redshift can only tell us about its velocity relative to our location.
Any other estimation from that redshift is imagination!
Therefore, the BBT math which converts the redshift to distance or age is clearly incorrect!

6. BBR in the CMBR
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27
Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.
No.
I proved that you can get the same CMBR in a toy universe which is finite.
So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time duration (Only 60 MY - as it had been created during the era of recombination between 240 M to 300M years) forever and ever.
Therefore, the idea that we get today the CMBR from that Era is a pure fiction.

7. Inflation
Based on the inflation the Universe has to increase its space at billions times the speed of light.
Our scientists can't explain what is the requested force/energy that could set that kind of inflation.
They also can't explain what kind of force could stop that ultra high inflation.
Therefore, the idea of the inflation in the BBT should be considered as the Biggest imagination which had ever been set by scientist.
Never the less, Alan Harvey Guth have got the Nobel reward for his unrealistic Hypothetical idea as it saved the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
It is very clear that without the inflation idea - the BBT is useless.

Conclusions -
The BBT is not just an hypothetical idea. It should be set in the garbage.
We must look at our Universe without the BBT filter.
If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.
We would find that those scientists that claim that the Universe is Infinite Old are fully correct.
We would also find that those scientists that claim that the Universe is Infinite in its size are also fully correct.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/11/2020 09:00:59
The BBT also hasn't been aproved, so how shall we know in which scientist we have to trust?
You follow the actual evidence, and the logic used by the person making the claim.
This is how we know that we can reject the hypothesis which you called "theory 4.
It's less reliable, but you can also make a judgement based on what the person has said before.
And, since we know that you talked a lot of nonsense in that thread (and this one) we are justified in not trusting what you say.

There's nothing special about science here- this is exactly the same way you would work out who to trust in any other walk of life.


How do we know that 13.4By ago the entire Universe was full ONLY with hot  hydrogen plasma?
We don't, but you would have to explain where the other stuff went. (The universe is mainly hydrogen)
It also doesn't matter.
Any hot dense plasma would act like a blackbody.
That's pretty much why it's called black.

Again, this is an example of things you don't know but which I do know.

As I have already explained, we only see the expansion of galaxies and not the expansion in the Universe space.
And I have explained that's all you need to be able to see to verify the expansion of space.

And some of them "look like" they are travelling at more than the speed of light- which is impossible.
So they must be in space that is moving away from us.

Again this is an example of a thing I understand, but you don't. Because you are the one with D K syndrome here.

When we observe a far away galaxy with high redshift, that redshift can only tell us about its velocity relative to our location.
When it tells us that the velocity is greater than the speed of light, you know that one of your assumptions is wrong.


If this calculation is correct, then the BBT with its limited age of 13.8 BY should be set in the garbage.
But you can't show that it is correct.

We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the hubble ratio was constant.

5. Redshift -
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!
And if the red shift indicates a speed above C something has gone wrong.


Please prove it by real science law!
see above
 
In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.
No.
We have measured the distance.
Do you understand that?
It's a measurement- not some thing from the theory.
The measurement would be true regardless of what theory you used. (The interesting thing is that the stuff which is further away is moving away from us faster. So, if you go far enough the recession velocity must exceed C- which is a problem.

And, if you know how far away something is and you know the speed of light then you know how long ago whatever you see actually happened.

That's just common sense.


So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time duration
Yes there is.
You can measure that radiation, so we know it is there.
We are saying it has been around for about 13 B years.
You are saying two things
It has been there forever- because you say the age is infinite, but you also say it couldn't still be there after 13 billion years.
Do you see the problem there?
You have contradicted yourself.

The BBT has a very simple explanation.
It has taken us that long to reach us because it has been racing across a universe which is expanding.
On the journey, it has been "stretched out" which is why it's now 2.7K

They also can't explain what kind of force could stop that ultra high inflation.
Whatever caused it ran out.
Therefore, the idea of the inflation in the BBT should be considered as the Biggest imagination which had ever been set by scientist.
Do you not realise it's not something we made up; it's something we saw?
It is an observation.
If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.
Nobody has actually said otherwise.
But please explain why, for things that are measured as being further away, the red shift, and thus the velocity, is bigger?
Because that means that the whole universe is rushing away from us. practically nothing has been observed with a blue shift.

And if it is infinitely old and is moving away from us, how come it is still here?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 07:50:28
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11
If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.
Nobody has actually said otherwise.
Thanks
This is real science!
Red shift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity!!!
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11
5. Redshift -
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!
And if the red shift indicates a speed above C something has gone wrong.
No.
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept and agree in the real evidence that we clearly observe?
We have deeply discussed this issue before.
Einstein gave us the Relativity formula.
That formula works perfectly at a local space time.
Therefore it is not accepted to see locally anything that move faster than the speed of light.
So, in any local space time in the whole infinite Universe - nothing can move faster than the seed of light.
However, a far away space time has no obligation for our local space time.
Therefore, galaxies in that far away space time could move much faster than the speed of light with reference to us, but no one of them would be able to move faster than the speed of light with reference to any nearby galaxy in its local space time.
I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location
So, do you understand the meaning of real science?

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11
In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.
No.
We have measured the distance.
Do you understand that?
No, This is incorrect.
In one hand our scientists are using the redshift for measuring the velocity:
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
In astrophysics, we use z = (Dl/lo) as the redshift, so velocities are related
to redshift simply by
v = cz."
However, on the other hand they use the reference in the redshift in order to estimate the distance of this galaxy in the maximal "visible universe" size of 4.17Gpc:
d  = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
    = (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc.                    (Size of visible universe)

I claim that this formula is just incorrect.
It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.

In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.

We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the Hubble ratio was constant.
First - if you call something constant - then in real science it is expected that it will be constant.
But as expected in our BBT imagination Universe a constant can't be a constant while you all are very happy...
Second - Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, therefore, you would never ever find any constant value for this constant to be used in that formula which should represents our Universe.
Therefore, this constant can't be considered as a real constant.
Hence, I claim that Hubble constant is NONSENCE!!!
We shouldn't use it in any formula.
That constant is the BIGGEST mistake of the modern science!
Einstein had set a cosmic constant in his formula.
Latter on he had stated that this was its biggest mistake.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20181030a/full/
“Einstein remarked to me many years ago that the cosmic repulsion idea was the biggest blunder he had made in his entire life.”

Unfortunately, our scientists have used that specific cosmic repulsion constant which  as the Hubble constant.
This is forbidden!!!
As Einstein has claimed that this cosmic constant is the Biggest mistake of his life, then all the 100,000 BBT scientists must understand that it is his biggest mistake of his life!
How do they dare to violate Einstein formula and also still call it Einstein Formula?

Any scientist which accept this severe violation in Einstein formula can't be considered as scientist.
How do you dare to carry the name of Einstein while you all violate his will???
You tell me that due to Einstein relativity Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, while on the other hand you totally ignore his request for NOT adding that constant in his formula.
Shame on you and shame to all the BBT scientists which accept that severe violation.

I call you all "BBT scientists" as any scientist that accept the idea of adding the Hubble constant in Einstein formula can't be considered as real scientist.

So - all of you have to take a decision.
If you carry the name of Einstein, then please take out the Hubble constant from Einstein formula and set it in the garbage.
If you can't do so, then please don't carry Einstein name for nothing any more!!!
From now on we all must agree that the Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will.

Therefore, as the whole BBT is based on that constant, once you set this Hubble constant in the garbage, the BBT would follow it to the garbage.

Is it clear to you?

CMBR
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11
So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time duration
Yes there is.
You can measure that radiation, so we know it is there.
How can you claim such nonsense?
The idea that we get CMBR doesn't prove that your understanding about its source is correct!

We are saying it has been around for about 13 B years.

Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.
This radiation travels at the speed of light, so you technically can't hold it forever.
The BBT has a very simple explanation.
It has taken us that long to reach us because it has been racing across a universe which is expanding.
On the journey, it has been "stretched out" which is why it's now 2.7K

As you claim that it is so easy to explain that radiation, let me offer you the following example:
Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.
You are free to move yourself in space at the speed of light or ask the space to take you at the speed of light.
In any case, after moving away from the laser source in the speed of light for only 13.4 days (instead of Billion 13.4 BY in the BBT), what might be the amplitude of the radiation from that laser beam that you should get?
Try to explain how could you get any radiation while you moving away from that source at the speed of light.

And if it is infinitely old and is moving away from us, how come it is still here?
If you won't violate Einstein formula by that Hubble constant.
If you would know that there is no way to "stretched out" the CMBR in our real Universe
If you would base your knowledge ONLY on real science

You would know that what we see is what we have
So the CMBR represents the radiation in our current real Universe.
As I have stated, the amplitude in the CMBR and the BBR tells us the real size and shape of our Universe.
Please be aware that CMBR was exactly the same 100,000,000 Trillion Years ago and it will be the same in the next 100,000,000... Trillion years.
This is real science!!!
So, once we set the Hubble constant (which isn't constant) and all related BBT math which is based on that constant in the garbage, we can discuss real science..

Let me reuse your following statement:
Again, this is an example of things you don't know but which I do know.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2020 09:02:51
No.
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.
And, of course, that's impossible.

If it was the other way round, and the supporters of BBT were glibly saying it moves faster than light you would be the first  to claim that was absurd.
Yet you accept it.
And then you tell the lie that your "Theory D" hypothesis is consistent with the laws of physics.

Perhaps we should invent a name for this class of people who ignore the rules of nature in order to support your view.
We can call them "theory dim scientists".
As far a I can tell you are the only "theory dim scientist".






I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location
Because space is expanding.

Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.
It is inthe universe.
Where else could it go?
There isn't any way for it to leave the universe.
So obviously, it is still here (Until it hits something).

Why do you think I need to prove that?
There isn't anywhere else it could be, is there?


How can you claim such nonsense?
The idea that we get CMBR doesn't prove that your understanding about its source is correct!
The same is true of your "alternative" idea- with the problems that you need to explain how something so cold emitted so much light.

Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.
OK
The frequency of visible light is about 500 THz
So, in each second the electromagnetic field goes up and down 500,000,000,000,000 times and, in 60 seconds it will oscillate through 60 times as many cycles.
That's 3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs.
Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of light and that the radiation, when it reaches me has been stretched out into the microwave region at about 1GHz.
I still see the full set of  3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs, but there's now a much longer (a nanosecond) interval between each one.
So it now takes 6 million seconds for them all to reach me.
That's about a month.

Now, the original "flash" of the universe will have been a lot longer than a minute so there's no problem with the radiation arriving here over a very long period of time.





It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.
Why?
In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.
WHat else would they use.
Also, it's not the only way in which we measure distances, and the measurements agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

So, if the red shift works for those, and the universe is homogeneous- as you claim there's nothing to stop the red shift working at other distances, is there?
And since it works, we should use it- rather than listening to the "theory dim scientists"
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 14:21:00
Why do you ignore the message from Einstein about his biggest mistake of adding a constant (Hubble constant) in his formula?

Quote
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:00:59
We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the Hubble ratio was constant.
First - if you call something constant - then in real science it is expected that it will be constant.
But as expected in our BBT imagination Universe a constant can't be a constant while you all are very happy...
Second - Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, therefore, you would never ever find any constant value for this constant to be used in that formula which should represents our Universe.
Therefore, this constant can't be considered as a real constant.
Hence, I claim that Hubble constant is NONSENCE!!!
We shouldn't use it in any formula.
That constant is the BIGGEST mistake of the modern science!
Einstein had set a cosmic constant in his formula.
Latter on he had stated that this was its biggest mistake.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20181030a/full/
“Einstein remarked to me many years ago that the cosmic repulsion idea was the biggest blunder he had made in his entire life.”

Unfortunately, our scientists have used that specific cosmic repulsion constant which  as the Hubble constant.
This is forbidden!!!
As Einstein has claimed that this cosmic constant is the Biggest mistake of his life, then all the 100,000 BBT scientists must understand that it is his biggest mistake of his life!
How do they dare to violate Einstein formula and also still call it Einstein Formula?

Any scientist which accept this severe violation in Einstein formula can't be considered as scientist.
How do you dare to carry the name of Einstein while you all violate his will???
You tell me that due to Einstein relativity Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, while on the other hand you totally ignore his request for NOT adding that constant in his formula.
Shame on you and shame to all the BBT scientists which accept that severe violation.

I call you all "BBT scientists" as any scientist that accept the idea of adding the Hubble constant in Einstein formula can't be considered as real scientist.

So - all of you have to take a decision.
If you carry the name of Einstein, then please take out the Hubble constant from Einstein formula and set it in the garbage.
If you can't do so, then please don't carry Einstein name for nothing any more!!!
From now on we all must agree that the Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will.

Therefore, as the whole BBT is based on that constant, once you set this Hubble constant in the garbage, the BBT would follow it to the garbage.

Is it clear to you?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2020 18:03:02
Why do you ignore the message from Einstein about his biggest mistake of adding a constant (Hubble constant) in his formula?
Because we have evidence.

Why do you try to use logical fallacies- such as "argument by authority" which just get you laughed at?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: puppypower on 11/11/2020 20:09:32
The second law states that the entropy of the universe increases over time. Since entropy absorbs energy and entropy has to increase over time, energy is being made unusable to the universe, since it is tied up in ever increasing entropy.

Since energy has to be conserved; Energy Conservation, than this implies there is an increasing pool of dead energy, associated with entropy, that is not net reusable by the universe. This accumulating pool of dead energy has a connection to the unidirectional flow of time to the future. Time does not cycle like a clock, because the past had more useable energy in play, than does the present or the future. Different points in time cannot replace each other, but can only go forward to  places of less usable energy due to the second law.

This dead pool of accumulating energy creates a problem for all the existing theoretical traditions connected to the universe. None of these take into the account the dead pool of energy, associate with the second law. For example, the cyclic or infinite universe theories both assume the wrong energy balances since the dead pool implies the future cannot be the same as the past, but rather the universe will eventually have no useable energy and only dead pool energy. The universe has one life, unless dead pool energy is somehow released again.

The question is, how would one describe dead pool energy? We know ir comes from entropy increasing. Entropy is a state variable meaning for any given state of matter, there is a given amount of measurable entropy. Dead pool energy, if energy is conserved, would be analogous to living memories of past entropic states. 

The past is over, but the past still has a connection to the present, by the foundation it laid and the trajectory it created. For example, A galaxy can be hundreds of millions of light years in size and all appear coordinated. This seems odd since the speed of light is too slow to coordinate a large galaxy in real time using gravity. Yet coordination happens, due to a trajectory from the past; dead pool memory of previous entropic states.

The energy signals we receive from the early universe do not represent the present state of the universe, but come from previous states of the universe that no longer exist.  These previous states had an impact on the trajectory to the present. We have no clue of the material present beyond what is next to us. It appears we are confusing dead pool energy with the current useable energy.





Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12
Why do you ignore the message from Einstein about his biggest mistake of adding a constant (Hubble constant) in his formula?
Because we have evidence.
Sorry - there is not even one evidence to confirm the BBT imagination.
So, let's try to understand those "evidences"

1. BBT Math
As the Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, that constant should be set in the garbage.
Once you do so, the whole BBT math is useless.

2. Distance vs. Redshift
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.
Why?
As we all agree that redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity, it can't be used to evaluate any sort of distance.
Therefore, it is forbidden to use the redshift in any formula for distance calculation!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.
WHat else would they use.
Also, it's not the only way in which we measure distances, and the measurements agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

So, if the red shift works for those, and the universe is homogeneous- as you claim there's nothing to stop the red shift working at other distances, is there?
And since it works, we should use it- rather than listening to the "theory dim scientists"
In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova
"The similarity in the absolute luminosity profiles of nearly all known Type Ia supernovae has led to their use as a secondary standard candle in extragalactic astronomy.[49] Improved calibrations of the Cepheid variable distance scale[50] and direct geometric distance measurements to NGC 4258 from the dynamics of maser emission[51] when combined with the Hubble diagram of the Type Ia supernova distances have led to an improved value of the Hubble constant."
However, NGC 4258 is located at a distance of only 23.7 ± 1.5 Mly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_106
So, our scientists try to improve the Hubble constant based on relatively nearby galaxy.
That is a severe mistake.
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-a-redshift
In the following redshift/distance diagram we clearly see that at a distance of 15 MPC (virgo cluster) some galaxies are moving at 500 Km/s and other at almost 2000 Km/s
So, there is no real correlation between distances to redshift for galaxies which are located at a distance above 15MPC.
Therefore, the Hubble constant might be Ok for nearby galaxy, but it surly can't give a correct estimation for far away galaxies.
Therefore, the following formula is just incorrect:
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
Hubble found a linear relationship between distance and redshift
v = cz = Hod
There is no linear relationship between distance to redshift.
I have just proved it and it goes worst as the distance is increasing.

3. CMBR
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.
OK
The frequency of visible light is about 500 THz
So, in each second the electromagnetic field goes up and down 500,000,000,000,000 times and, in 60 seconds it will oscillate through 60 times as many cycles.
That's 3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs.
Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of light and that the radiation, when it reaches me has been stretched out into the microwave region at about 1GHz.
I still see the full set of  3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs, but there's now a much longer (a nanosecond) interval between each one.
So it now takes 6 million seconds for them all to reach me.
That's about a month.

Now, the original "flash" of the universe will have been a lot longer than a minute so there's no problem with the radiation arriving here over a very long period of time.
Well, if you move exactly at the speed of light you won't get any radiation from that laser beam.
Therefore, you have stated that you move nearly the speed of light:

Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of light
At that case you might get some radiation, but it would be so low that you would never be able to detect it.
If you are moving at 1/2c than at the maximal, you would double the time that you can see that radiation.
However, as you are located further away the radiation should drop dramatically.
So, even after few Millisecond, you won't be able to detect any real radiation.

Therefore, if we are moving at the speed of light with reference to the Recombination Era radiation, we won't get any radiation for that era.
If we move at almost the speed of light, we might get some but it would be so dramatically low and actually undetectable.
If we move at 1/2 c than we might get the radiation - but only for 60 My * 2 = 120 MY.
In any case, as we increasing distance to that Era, it s very clear that the energy of the radiation should drop dramatically and after just few years or MY we won't be able to detect any radiation energy
Therefore, the idea that even after 13.4 BY we can still detect a radiation from that era is a clear imagination. 

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.
It is inthe universe.
Where else could it go?
There isn't any way for it to leave the universe.
In a finite Universe some galaxies must be located near the edge of the Universe.
So, as the galaxies at this space time can't move faster than the speed of light, the radiation at that aria must cross the edge.
If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.

4. Faster than the speed of light
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
No.
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.
And, of course, that's impossible.
Yes it is possible!
Relativity is only related to relatively local space time.
Therefore, Galaxies at a different space time can move faster than the speed of light with reference to each other.
I have already deeply explained it

4. Expansion
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location
Because space is expanding.
No
It is due to different space time and not due to the expansion in space as the space is fixed forever and ever!!!
I have asked you before and I ask you again
Show the science formula that permits the idea of space expansion.
Please do not use the BBT math imagination.
Only real science law!

Conclusion

As Einstein has stated that it is forbidden to add the cosmological constant in his formula, then the Hubble constant can't be used in his formula.
As we drop that constant in the garbage, the BBT isn't valid any more.
Hence, there is no need to continue the discussion about the BBT imagination
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2020 21:22:47
BBT Math
We already pointed out that you were doing the wrong maths because the hubble ratio isn't a constant.

As we all agree that redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity, it can't be used to evaluate any sort of distance.
Therefore, it is forbidden to use the redshift in any formula for distance calculation!
Nonsense.
We know it works; so we use it.
So, our scientists try to improve the Hubble constant based on relatively nearby galaxy.
That is a severe mistake.
What else should they use?
Dance?
At that case you might get some radiation, but it would be so low that you would never be able to detect it.
Bollocks.
If the laser is sending out some energy then I will receive that energy.
OK because it's spread over a longer time, the intensity is lower but then, the intensity of the CMBR is pretty low.
That's not actually a problem if you understand science.
I see you are struggling with it.
So, there is no real correlation between distances to redshift for galaxies which are located at a distance above
You don't know what a correlation is, do you?
That data is strongly correlated- even if you don't want to admit it.



So, even after few Millisecond, you won't be able to detect any real radiation.
The energy was sent out.
I can detect energy when it reaches me.
So if you say it doesn't arrive, you need to explain where it went.

Again, you simply fail to grasp the conservation laws. Why not learn science?



Hubble found a linear relationship between distance and redshift
...
There is no linear relationship between distance to redshift.
Which one do you mean?
He did get a stack of prizes for it you know... Don't you think they checked...?

Yes it is possible!
The use of an exclamation mark does not permit you to travel faster than light.
If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.
If you really think the finite thing should be considered infinite, you are a fool.
If we move at almost the speed of light, we might get some but it would be so dramatically low and actually undetectable.
We are looking at the radiation from an arc lamp  the size of the universe, and we can barely see it because it has been stretched out until it looks like the "thermal " radiation from something in liquid helium.
We do get some. It is "dramatically low" but because proper scientists are doing the work rather than "theory dim scientists" they can measure it.



As Einstein has stated that it is forbidden
He is dead. He does not have a say in it.
there is no need to continue the discussion about the BBT imagination
No reason except that practically everything you say is wrong or impossible.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/11/2020 04:10:44
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12
As Einstein has stated that it is forbidden
He is dead. He does not have a say in it.
As long as you use his formula and carry his name, then you can't ignore his will.
So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.
Therefore - even as he doesn't live today - we must accept his will and take that constant out from his formula.
If we keep it - we can't call it Einstein formula.

In any case, I have tried to get better understanding on this issue:
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/17/einsteins-greatest-blunder-was-really-a-blunder
In this article we understand the history of that cosmologic constant.
Einstein has used it in order to solve the idea of static Universe.
"He proposed that there was an intrinsic energy to space itself, a cosmological constant, responsible for this. This cosmological constant would push back with exactly the force needed to counteract gravity on these large scales, and would lead to the Universe being static."
So, Einstien has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.
Latter on he had found that it was a severe mistake and therefore he eliminated that constant.

However, our scientists are using today this forbidden constant to solve the expansion of the Galaxies problem.
Hence, instead of using that constant as intrinsic energy to space itself they used it for the Hubble constant.
The outcome is very clear as stated-

"The cosmological constant may have come back, but it has nothing to do with the reasons Einstein proposed for its existence, nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested. Sometimes old ideas come back in new forms to solve new puzzles"

So, as our scientists are using that constant not for the reasons Einstein proposed for its existence, and nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested, that Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will,
Therefore, that constant should be set in the garbage and the sooner is better.
In any case, if our scientists insist to use that forbidden constant in Einstein formula,  while it clearly doesn't represent the original idea of intrinsic energy to space itself and nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested - than please
They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formula
As long as our scientists use that Hubble constant in his formula and call it Einstein formula - they clearly carry Einstein Name for nothing!!!
This isn't real science - It is the BBT science!

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12
BBT Math
We already pointed out that you were doing the wrong maths because the hubble ratio isn't a constant.
So you are using a constant which isn't constant.
That one more evidence why that constant shouldn't be used in Einstein formula.
Therefore, the BBT math which is based on this constant should be set in the garbage.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12
If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.
If you really think the finite thing should be considered infinite, you are a fool.
You miss my intention.
I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infinite even if we call it "unbounded finite Universe" or a "finite universe without edge"!!!
So, as our scientists claim that our universe has no edge or unbounded - our Universe MUST be infinite!!!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Xeon on 13/11/2020 15:58:27
If you didn't understand the Big Bang theory when it was explained to you in all of your other threads, you're not going to understand it in this one either.
Is your answer educational ? 

Actually , most of you don't understand the big bang either . If you understood the theory you'd know that the theory is incomplete , stating the universe formed from a hot dense state without explanation of how this hot dense state was formed . Perhaps you can shed some light on this process ?

Boo to your reply sir.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2020 16:30:24
then you can't ignore his will.
What a stupid notion...
Of course I can.
Also, While it's clear that Newton was wrong, NASA scientists used newtonian physics to put a man on the moon.

So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.
He said that- or , at least, he's reported to have said it.

Which means he was wrong.
Either he was wrong the first time, or he was wrong the second time.
It's not possible from his work to find out which.
But it is possible to find out by making  measurements and observations.
We have done that.
The universe is expanding and it does not matter what a dead man thought.


However, our scientists are using today this forbidden constant
It isn't "forbidden" in any sensible way.

Therefore, that constant should be set in the garbage and the sooner is better.
You are proposing to put evidence in the garbage.
Science is not going to do that...

So, Einstien has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.
Latter on he had found that it was a severe mistake and therefore he eliminated that constant.
Yes.
And so Einstein recognised that we do not have a static universe.
It's expanding.
And your idea- that it is infinitely old, implies that it is static. I.e. that it's "the same as it always was" so, per Einstein, you are wrong.

What point did you think you were making?



That one more evidence why that constant shouldn't be used in Einstein formula.
It isn't.
Hubble's constant (measured  in1929) was not known when Einstein did his work published  in 1917.



I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infinite
You are still wrong.
The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded.

They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formula
OK, if it makes you happier, you can name it after this guy- whose work is based on Einsteins, and showed that you can't have a steady state universe without fudging it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann#Relativity

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/11/2020 05:16:10
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44
So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.
He said that- or , at least, he's reported to have said it.

Which means he was wrong.
Either he was wrong the first time, or he was wrong the second time.
It's not possible from his work to find out which.
The facts are very clear to all of us - including to YOU
1. Einstein had first set his formula without  any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/17/einsteins-greatest-blunder-was-really-a-blunder
In this article we understand the history of that cosmologic constant.
Einstein has used it in order to solve the idea of static Universe.
"He proposed that there was an intrinsic energy to space itself, a cosmological constant, responsible for this. This cosmological constant would push back with exactly the force needed to counteract gravity on these large scales, and would lead to the Universe being static."
So, Einstein has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.
3. In order to support in the BBT idea, other scientists have used that cosmological constant as the Hubble constant.
Einstein had stated that it was his biggest mistake.

I hope that we all agree to those facts

Now this is my understanding:
Einstein didn't agree with the BBT as he believed in the idea of static Universe.
Therefore, when he had noticed that the science community is using his constant for to support the BBT - he was very upset and stated that it was his biggest mistake.

4. However there is one more stage in this story.
At older age, he considered to reuse that constant in order to support the idea of new created particles
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."

So, Einstein fully supported the understanding that new particles should be created as time goes on!!!
This idea contradicts the BBT and fully supports Theory D as "Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant".
Therefore - from now on we must agree on the following facts
1. Einstein didn't accept the BBT
2. I have full approval from Einstein to claim that new particles could be created in our Universe.

However, as I already know you quite well, you would reject those facts.

So are you going to prove the following statement from Einstein?

If the fact don't fit the theory - Chang the facts
https://www.quotesuniverse.com/quote/35

Could it be that he had used this idea in order to show his frustration from the BBT?

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44
They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formula
OK, if it makes you happier, you can name it after this guy- whose work is based on Einsteins, and showed that you can't have a steady state universe without fudging it.
Yes Please
From now on - our scientists can't use Einstein name for nothing!
They can use his formula and change it as they wish, but they can't call it Einstein formula any more.

Actually, in one of the articles that I have found it was stated that our scientists are using today that constant for the dark energy. It was also stated that the impact of the dark energy constant is 70% in that formula.
So, if that is correct then it proves that our scientists are clearly not using the constant according to Einstein will.
In any case - our scientists can do whatever they wish - but please they can't call it Einstein formula any more.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44
I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infinite
You are still wrong.
The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded.
Sorry - you are wrong!!!
A surface has 2D.
However, our real space is 3D and ONLY 3D.
Hence, it is very clear that you can band 2D in a 3D and get a surface without end.
However, there is no way to band a 2D surface in a 2D surface in order to get it as unbounded surface.

Therefore, there is no way to band a 3D space in a 3D space, as there is no way to band a 2D surface in a 2D surface.
I hope that we also agree that there is no 4D space. Therefore, without a 4D space there is no way to band a 3D space!!!

Therefore, as long as our real space is based only on 3D (and there is no 4D space) there is no way to get unbounded Universe in a finite Universe.
Unbounded Universe in a real 3D means only - Infinite Universe!!!!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 14/11/2020 10:12:01
Quote from: Dave Lev
1. Einstein had first set his formula without  any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe
Mathematically, Integration always produces a constant.
- Part of solving the integration is finding some way to identify the value of this constant.
- And it's true, defining the constant is usually the second part of solving the integration
- Physicists at the time thought the universe was static & eternal, so Einstein plugged in a finely-balanced value that could have made the universe static and eternal.

The general theory of relativity was published in 1915. The expansion of the universe was discovered by Hubble in 1929, so Einstein had no basis for assigning a different value to the constant.

Quote
3. In order to support in the BBT idea, other scientists have used that cosmological constant as the Hubble constant.
It was the Belgian priest & physicist Lemaitre who identified the possibility within Einstein's equations for a beginning to an expanding universe.
- As a Christian, he was not so tied to the idea of an eternal universe as most of his colleagues at the time.
- His hypothesis was later shown to be correct by Hubble's observations of distant galaxies - and that is when Einstein realized he had made a mistake in defining the constant.

You can have an expanding universe with a zero cosmological constant.
- After Hubble's observations, most astronomers just assumed the cosmological constant was zero.
- So you definitely don't use the Cosmological constant as Hubble's constant.

Today (after about the year 2000), the Cosmological Constant  has been used to model the changes in the Hubble "constant" over the life of the universe.

Quote
our scientists are clearly not using the constant according to Einstein will
Mathematics says there will be a constant (which may be zero).
- Einstein died in 1955.
- The accelerating expansion of the universe was discovered about 1990.
-So, clearly, Einstein could not assign a value to the cosmological constant that would account for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
- But what today's scientists are doing is entirely consistent with the mathematics that Einstein used.

Quote
responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded

This sounds like Hoyle's model of a steady-state universe, rather than anything espoused by Einstein.
Despite having named the Big Bang, Hoyle never believed in the Big Bang. He preferred to believe in an eternal universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang

Quote
I hope that we also agree that there is no 4D space.
Einstein showed that time adds another dimension to 3D space, such that measurements by different observers still make sense in a 4D spacetime.
- This does not hold true in a purely 3D space.
- String theorists see reasons to suppose that there may be 10 or more dimensions.

I suggest that you just get used to the 4 dimensions you can experience directly, without worrying about any more...
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/11/2020 13:52:42
However, our real space is 3D and ONLY 3D.
Plainly wrong, there are 4,
left and right,
forward and back
up and down and
time.

You can't say we should worship at the altar of Einstein, and then dismiss one of his greatest works.

The facts are very clear to all of us - including to YOU
1. Einstein had first set his formula without  any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe
You have that backwards. Here's what Wiki says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

"Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's confirmation of the expanding universe."

That constant which he abandoned is the thing he described as his greatest mistake.
He had introduced it as a fudge factor, to produce a static universe.
When he found out about Hubble's work, he realised that the constant wasn't needed.
That's when he abandoned it.

So, do you now see that you have completely misunderstood the Einstein episode?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/11/2020 02:08:22
It was the Belgian priest & physicist Lemaitre who identified the possibility within Einstein's equations for a beginning to an expanding universe.
- As a Christian, he was not so tied to the idea of an eternal universe as most of his colleagues at the time.
- His hypothesis was later shown to be correct by Hubble's observations of distant galaxies - and that is when Einstein realized he had made a mistake in defining the constant.
Thanks for your excellent explanation.

You can have an expanding universe with a zero cosmological constant.
- After Hubble's observations, most astronomers just assumed the cosmological constant was zero.
- So you definitely don't use the Cosmological constant as Hubble's constant.
today (after about the year 2000), the Cosmological Constant  has been used to model the changes in the Hubble "constant" over the life of the universe.
So, the Cosmological constant is used just for the acceleration in the expansion as discovered in 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
The accelerating expansion of the universe is the observation that the expansion of the universe is such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time.
However, as Einstein have stated that this cosmological constant is his biggest mistake, then I still claim that we shouldn't use it.
Therefore, the outcome due to Einstein formula without that constant is that there is no acceleration in the expansion of the galaxies in our Universe.
However, our scientists insist that there is acceleration:
So, let's look at the following image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#/media/File:Lambda-Cold_Dark_Matter,_Accelerated_Expansion_of_the_Universe,_Big_Bang-Inflation.jpg
If I understand it correctly, the acceleration is due to the limited age of the Universe which is 13.7 BY.
As based on Einstein formula (without the constant) there is no room for acceleration, why can't we just use that observation to understand the real size of our Universe?
So, if based on Hubble law we clearly see a correlation between redshift and distance, why can't we just take the higher redshift to a longer distance?
In other words - if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?

I have one more question:
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?




Quote
Quote
responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded
This sounds like Hoyle's model of a steady-state universe, rather than anything espoused by Einstein.
Despite having named the Big Bang, Hoyle never believed in the Big Bang. He preferred to believe in an eternal universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang
As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new partials creation that is OK with me.


Quote
Quote
I hope that we also agree that there is no 4D space.
Einstein showed that time adds another dimension to 3D space, such that measurements by different observers still make sense in a 4D space-time.
- This does not hold true in a purely 3D space.
- String theorists see reasons to suppose that there may be 10 or more dimensions.
Thanks
The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space
"In physics and mathematics, a sequence of n numbers can be understood as a location in n-dimensional space. When n = 3, the set of all such locations is called three-dimensional Euclidean space (or simply Euclidean space when the context is clear). It is commonly represented by the symbol ℝ3.[1][2] This serves as a three-parameter model of the physical universe (that is, the spatial part, without considering time), in which all known matter exists."

I suggest that you just get used to the 4 dimensions you can experience directly, without worrying about any more...
Well, we can always add one more mathematical dimension.
If we add time, it would be called as Space-time.
It will give us excellent mathematical tool. However, it won't add one more dimension in our real Euclidean space.
I know that Einstein had also try to understand the impact of 5D in his mathematical calculation.
So, theoretically, we can add unlimited dimensions as we wish.
However, our real universe is only based on three-dimensional Euclidean space which should go up the infinity.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 15/11/2020 09:17:33
Quote from: Dave Lev
Einstein formula without that constant
Mathematically, the constant is present.

But mathematically, it's value may be zero (if that value is supported by the observational evidence).

Quote
the outcome due to Einstein formula without that constant is that there is no acceleration in the expansion of the galaxies in our Universe
Not quite.

With the Cosmological Constant = 0, there is a force on the expanding universe which produces a deceleration (which is a form of acceleration, just a negative one...).
- In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring this deceleration
- Both teams were surprised to see that in fact there was an acceleration
- The observational evidence showed that the assumption that "the cosmological constant = 0" was wrong (ie the hypothesis that had held sway for the previous 50 years had to be updated)
- If new, contradictory evidence appears, you need to reconsider your assumptions - that's just good science (it would make for better politics too...)

More recent, more extensive surveys suggest that a deceleration was present up to about 5 billion years after the big bang, but acceleration dominates today.

Quote
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?
If you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D spacetime
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)

But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design

Quote
I have one more question:
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?
The Hubble constant only applies on very large scales - bigger than a galaxy, and bigger than a cluster of galaxies.

So the expansion of the universe has no observable effect at the level of a galaxy which is strongly bound by its own gravitation.

(Unless the "Big Rip" hypothesis turns out to be true - this would eventually pull apart galaxies, the Solar System, the Earth and our atoms. It is currently considered plausible, but has no direct measurements to support it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip) 

Quote
As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new particals creation that is OK with me.
Einstein was very careful to ensure conservation of energy in his theory of Relativity. He would not have approved of matter suddenly appearing; after all, Einstein was the one who originated the iconic E=mc2.

Hoyle , however, was willing to sacrifice conservation of energy to maintain the idea of an eternal universe.

So I think Hoyle & Einstein differed greatly on this.
- Hoyle's steady state theory is generally seen as a "last gasp" for the eternal universe.
- Einstein was convinced that the universe had a compact start as soon as he saw Hubble's experimental results (it wasn't actually called a Big Bang until Hoyle gave it that name in 1949).

Quote
The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean space
Except where it isn't, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

There are black holes in our universe, and things get really twisted inside a black hole's event horizon.
- No matter how far you travel in a straight line, you don't exit the event horizon.
- And yet the event horizon may only be 10km across (when measured from the outside).
- That is definitely not a 3D Euclidean space!
- It's a bit like Dr Who's Tardis - bigger on the inside than the outside!

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 10:30:48
However, our scientists insist that there is have measured the acceleration:
Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 10:32:37
In other words - if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?
Because that's not what the measurements of red shift and distance tell us.
You can't ignore the evidence just because you don't like it.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/11/2020 11:38:43
Dear Evan_au
Many thanks for your clear explanations.
I do appreciate all your efforts

Quote
Quote
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?
If you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D space-time
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)
Thanks!!!
Although - I still claim that there is no 4D space...

But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design
Well, it is all about the current Theory.
Based on the BBT, the age of the Universe is only 13.8 BY
Therefore - you claim about "where they were when they emitted the light that we see now"
If we chose a different theory - then we can overcome this limitation.
Therefore, as long as we see our universe through the BBT filter, then we surly have several key obstacles.
Because that's not what the measurements of red shift and distance tell us.
No!!!
You have already confirmed that the Hubble law is based on relatively short distance.(In the range of MPC).
Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?
In any case - it is very clear to me that we must accept the Hubble law and accept the idea that:
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY a redshift of 2 represents a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 represents a distance of 60 BLY.
Therefore - the expansion is fixed at any distance!!!

With the Cosmological Constant = 0, there is a force on the expanding universe which produces a deceleration (which is a form of acceleration, just a negative one...).
- In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring this deceleration
- Both teams were surprised to see that in fact there was an acceleration
- The observational evidence showed that the assumption that "the cosmological constant = 0" was wrong (ie the hypothesis that had held sway for the previous 50 years had to be updated)
- If new, contradictory evidence appears, you need to reconsider your assumptions - that's just good science (it would make for better politics too...)

More recent, more extensive surveys suggest that a deceleration was present up to about 5 billion years after the big bang, but acceleration dominates today.

Wow.
Thanks for your breakthrough information!!!
So, if I understand you correctly, based on Einstein formula (while the cosmological constant=0), the Universe had to "decelerated' its expansion.
Therefore, "In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring that deceleration".
However, as they have discovered that the Universe is actually accelerated - why our science community didn't stop for one moment and try to find better understanding for this unexpected discovery?
Why instead of believing in Einstein math, they have changed the Math to meet the BBT theory?
Remember the message from Einstein:
if
If the facts don't fit the theory - Chang the facts
https://www.quotesuniverse.com/quote/35
So, it was expected that our scientists would stop and try to find the error in their theory.
Instead they have reused that cosmological constant.
This was a severe mistake.

Therefore, I still claim that if based on Einstein formula  the Universe has to  decelerated - then the Universe must decelerated.
It is very clear to me that there is no decelerated or accelerated in the expansion.
The expansion in our Universe is fixed!
Therefore, our Job it to find the theory which could explain why a Universe that should decelerate its expansion doesn't obey to Einstein Math and keep on at the same fixed expansion (again - without the BBT filter)
Quote
Quote
I have one more question:
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?
The Hubble constant only applies on very large scales - bigger than a galaxy, and bigger than a cluster of galaxies.

So the expansion of the universe has no observable effect at the level of a galaxy which is strongly bound by its own gravitation.

(Unless the "Big Rip" hypothesis turns out to be true - this would eventually pull apart galaxies, the Solar System, the Earth and our atoms. It is currently considered plausible, but has no direct measurements to support it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip)
Sorry, I don't understand from your answer if we use Einstein formula on the expansion on galaxies or expansion on space.
Please offer a direct answer.

Quote
Quote
As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new partials creation that is OK with me.
Einstein was very careful to ensure conservation of energy in his theory of Relativity. He would not have approved of matter suddenly appearing; after all, Einstein was the one who originated the iconic E=mc2.

Hoyle , however, was willing to sacrifice conservation of energy to maintain the idea of an eternal universe.

So I think Hoyle & Einstein differed greatly on this.
- Hoyle's steady state theory is generally seen as a "last gasp" for the eternal universe.
- Einstein was convinced that the universe had a compact start as soon as he saw Hubble's experimental results (it wasn't actually called a Big Bang until Hoyle gave it that name in 1949).

I have offered a clear indication that at older age Einstein did believe in new particles creation:

At older age, he considered to reuse that constant in order to support the idea of new created particles
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."

So, Einstein fully supported the understanding that new particles should be created as time goes on!!!
This idea contradicts the BBT and fully supports Theory D as "Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant".

Quote
The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean space
Except where it isn't, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

There are black holes in our universe, and things get really twisted inside a black hole's event horizon.
- No matter how far you travel in a straight line, you don't exit the event horizon.
- And yet the event horizon may only be 10km across (when measured from the outside).
- That is definitely not a 3D Euclidean space!
- It's a bit like Dr Who's Tardis - bigger on the inside than the outside!
I fully agree that in some extreme conditions there could be banding in space (as BHs).
However, that banding works locally.
If you believe that the whole Universe is a one big BH than we could consider to use of BH formulas also for the Universe.
However, we clearly know that this isn't the case.
Therefore, at a very specific areas in the infinite space we should find local bending due to very high gravity force, but in the open infinite Universe outside the BHs there is no banding in the 3D space.
Hence - our infinite Universe must be a 3D space.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 12:07:57
You have already confirmed that the Hubble law is based on relatively short distance.
No, I have not.
But I have asked you how, in an homogeneous model of the universe it would change with distance.
Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?
We can measure it out to about 130 million light years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817

And to about 1.7 billion light years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_150101B


So your claim is wrong, and your claim that I agreed with it is wrong.

Why do you have to make all these false claims?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 12:19:45
Thanks for your breakthrough information!!!
If it was a breakthrough, it was thirty years ago.
You claim to understand the physics, but you keep being forced to admit that you didn't even know what the physics is.

You keep massively screwing up

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:16:10
The facts are very clear to all of us - including to YOU
1. Einstein had first set his formula without  any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe
You have that backwards. Here's what Wiki says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

"Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's confirmation of the expanding universe."

That constant which he abandoned is the thing he described as his greatest mistake.
He had introduced it as a fudge factor, to produce a static universe.
When he found out about Hubble's work, he realised that the constant wasn't needed.
That's when he abandoned it.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/11/2020 17:28:15
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:38:43
Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?
We can measure it out to about 130 million light years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
And to about 1.7 billion light years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_150101B
So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLY.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
GRB 150101B is a gamma-ray burst (GRB) that was detected on 1 January 2015
The GRB was determined to be 1.7 billion light-years (0.52 Gpc) from Earth
Redshift   ?? 0.093[4]

So, with a redshift of  0.093 or about 0.1 this GBR is located at a distance of 1.7Bly
Therefore, based on Hubble law, redshift 1 should indicate a distance of 17 BLY while redshift 10 should be 170BLY.
How can you prove that there shouldn't be a correlation between redshift to distance??

You claim to understand the physics, but you keep being forced to admit that you didn't even know what the physics is.
BC
It is very clear to me that you have one mission - to stop any idea which contradicts the BBT
Therefore, you do whatever it takes to confuse me.
I have already presented your tactics.
You just west our time for nothing.
Let me discuss with other people that are willing to share real science with me.
Please - stay away from my threads. I do not wish to continue the discussion with You.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 15/11/2020 17:28:20
Quote
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?
If you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D spacetime
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)
I know of no coordinate system that puts an object with redshift 10 at 60 BLY away. Such a distant object is simply outside the visible universe and thus cannot be seen at all.

The distance to an object is very dependent on how the distance is measured. Without specification of how the distance is measured, the figure is essentially meaningless.  A galaxy with redshift 10 might be said to be 30 BLY away (current proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time).  There is no simple algebraic formula to convert redshift to distance.  I get mine from graphs that plot the relationship from various solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

Quote
But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light[
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design
I disagree with the relevance of local particle speeds when talking about recession rates.  The speed and energy of a proton in the LHC is expressed using a Minkowski coordinate system in which velocities add the relativistic way, and no proton can move at >= c.  Such a coordinate system is completely misrepresentative of the large scale geometry of the universe where change in proper separation of objects over time (not to be confused with regular velocity, despite the similar units) is very much observed at rate far in excess of c.

So if we’re talking about “where they were when they emitted the light”, again using the coordinate system of past proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time, we find that distance actually decreases beyond a certain value of redshift (about 1.85).  So for example, light we see today redshifted by 2 was probably emitted about 5.6 BLY from here (proper distance at constant cosmological time), but light from the galaxy with redshift 11 (like GN-z11) was emitted from about half that distance away at the time.  The difference is measuring proper distance to that galaxy now vs at the time of emission.

So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLY
No website said that.  The maximum distance that we can measure depends on how you do the measurement.  I mean, what's the distance between London and Paris?  Has anybody ever actually stretched a tape measure between the two?  You can't see one from the other, so shining a light and timing the round trip doesnt work either.  So what method are we using to measure this theoretical 'max distance'?  The answer depends on that.

I contend that since no light that has ever been 6 BLY away has ever reached us, that seems to be a ceiling on max distance.  Anything beyond that is necessarily extrapolation.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 17:40:17
So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLY.
No
At best, you might say the furthest we have measured  SO FAR is 1.7 billion light years.
But the point is that the Hubble law still works.
And you have yet to address the idea that if it works here, why shouldn't it work "far away"?

How can you prove that there shouldn't be a correlation between redshift to distance??
I'm not trying to.
We use redshift (among other things) to measure distance.
We can only do that because there is a correlation.
It's not a linear correlation.
Do you still not understand that?


BC
It is very clear to me that you have one mission
It may be "clear" to you, but it is wrong.
You have invented it.

Therefore, you do whatever it takes to confuse me.
I just keep pointing out facts.
What confuses you is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I have already presented your tactics.
No
You have invented some sort of tactic, and pretended that it has anything to do with me.

You are simply wrong, but refuse to accept it.
.
Let me discuss with other people that are willing to share real science with me.
Nobody on this site is agreeing with you.
That's because we do science, and you make up nonsense.

Please - stay away from my threads. I do not wish to continue the discussion with You.
No
When you signed up to the site you agreed to discuss things.
The fact that it takes you months to answer a question means that you lied when you did that.

if you want to set up a website where everybody but me is invited that's fine by me .
But, on this site, you don't get to decide what and where I post.

If you don't like it, do us all a favour and leave.

Seriously, why do you think that nobody here agrees with your ideas?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/11/2020 17:51:45
I know of no coordinate system that puts an object with redshift 10 at 60 BLY away. Such a distant object is simply outside the visible universe and thus cannot be seen at all.
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.
Do you confirm that an object with a redshift of 0.1 is really located at 1.7 BLY?
If you accept the Hubble law that
V(velocity)= H0 (Hubble constant) * D(distance)
So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?
Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.
Hence, don't you agree that without the BBT, the distance to an object with redshift 1 should be 10 times the distance to an object with redshift 0.1.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 17:57:14
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
No, odd as it may seem to to you, it's based on what we can seen.
We really can only see so far.
This is at odds with your claim.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 15/11/2020 20:34:38
Quote from: Dave Lev
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
You have it backwards.

The BBT understanding is based on the Visible Universe.

Quote
If you believe that the whole Universe is a one big BH than we could consider to use of BH formulas also for the Universe.
However, we clearly know that this isn't the case.
With what we know of Hubble's law, the universe started off in a very compact state.

With this much mass in such a small space, it definitely would have formed a black hole.

Note: This is not based on the Visible Universe, because with present techniques, we can't directly image events earlier than the CMBR.
- However, scientists have analyzed ripples in the CMBR to extrapolate events which occurred earlier in the universe.
- And the conditions for black hole formation are certainly present.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/11/2020 05:35:51
With what we know of Hubble's law, the universe started off in a very compact state.
This isn't fully correct
Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:

V (velocity) = H0 * D

While

V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)

That's all

However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0":

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."

This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.

We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.

So, all I'm asking is to unleash ourselves from that wrong extrapolation and try to set the facts in front of our Eyes.

Let's focus only on real observation and real science formulas as:
Hubble Law
Einstein formulas (without the cosmological constant)
Redshift & Doppler effect.
Any other real science formula.
Eliminate any understanding from that wrong extrapolation (or the BBT filter).
Real data from our visible Universe.

Once we do so, we would be able to find the simple solution for our Universe.

Are you ready for that???
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2020 10:57:04
What we know is that all the stuff we see is moving away from us.
Since "new stuff" can not be made and we can still see stuff, it can not have existed forever.
Because, if it had, it would all have gone away by now.

That's the important bit.
And you seem not to understand it.

The fact that we can use observations and maths to show that the universe is 14 billion years old is just a deduction about how long "forever" would need to be.

The extrapolation doesn't change the fundamental observation.
The universe is expanding and the expansion must have started some time.

If you think that is wrong, then explain why- without breaking the conservation laws.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2020 11:00:12
This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end. what we actually observe in the real world.

That's your problem.
You are arguing that a fact- confirmed by countless measurements and many people and groups- is wrong.

And you are claiming that your idea- which breaks the laws of physics - is right.
Do you see why nobody agrees with you?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 16/11/2020 13:59:28
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.
OK
Quote
Do you confirm that an object with a redshift of 0.1 is really located at 1.7 BLY?
No.  There is no correlation between distance and redshift at all outside of the 'BBT filter'.  Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.

Quote
If you accept the Hubble law that
We do not have a Hubble law.  We discarded BBT remember? You must discard any laws that come from it.

Quote
So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?
I suppose if you fall back to Newtonian mechanics falsified 150 years ago, you might get a linear relation like that. But now you very much have a universe that does not correspond to the one we observe.

Quote
Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.
Nope. You said 10*V1, which is not a distance. There's no Hubble law in your no-BBT universe.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/11/2020 17:48:05
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:51:45
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.
OK
Thanks

Quote
Quote
If you accept the Hubble law that
We do not have a Hubble law.  We discarded BBT remember? You must discard any laws that come from it.
Hubble law is correct by 100%
I have stated that only the extrapolation is incorrect:
However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0":

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."

This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.
We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.

I wonder which "scientist" had confirmed that kind of wrong calculation?

In any case as Hubble law is correct, than his following formulas are correct:
Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:
V (velocity) = H0 * D
While
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)
That's all
Therefore:
V = Z c = H0 D
D = Z c / H0
Therefore, there is direct relationship between D (distance) to Z (redshift)
Hence, if redshift 0.1 represents distance of 1.7 BLY, then by definition redshift of 1 represents a distance of 17 BLY.
There is no correlation between distance and redshift at all outside of the 'BBT filter'.
Yes there is full linear relation between distances to redshift due to Hubble law as this law is correct.
The BBT filter is based on incorrect assumption of "extrapolation"
That extrapolation and the BBT understanding that the age of the Universe at t=0 is 14 BY should be set in the garbage.

 
Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.
As that understanding is due to BBT, then this whole issue should join the BBT at the garbage.
Quote
So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?
I suppose if you fall back to Newtonian mechanics falsified 150 years ago, you might get a linear relation like that.
I have proved that even by Hubble law there is a linear relation between Redshift to distance to velocity.
But now you very much have a universe that does not correspond to the one we observe.
it is all due to the severe mistake of the extrapolation.
Shut down the extrapolation/BBT and you get back that linear relation!!!



Quote
Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.
Nope. You said 10*V1, which is not a distance. There's no Hubble law in your no-BBT universe.
As I have stated - Hubble law is 100% correct and valid in any Universe.
Therefore, by increasing the redshift by 10, we increase the velocity by 10 and therefore, we increase the distance by 10.
A galaxy with a redshift of 13 should be located at a distance of:
13 * 17GLY = 221 GLY

With regards to the CMBR
The redshift of the CMBR is 1100
Therefore, we get the CMBR from a minimal sphere which its radius is about:
1100 * 1.7 G = 1,870 GLY = 1.87 Trillion LY
That is the minimal size of the Universe which sets the main impact of the CMBR in our universe.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2020 17:52:40
You seem to have missed this bit.

What we know is that all the stuff we see is moving away from us.
Since "new stuff" can not be made and we can still see stuff, it can not have existed forever.
Because, if it had, it would all have gone away by now.

That's the important bit.
And you seem not to understand it.

The fact that we can use observations and maths to show that the universe is 14 billion years old is just a deduction about how long "forever" would need to be.

The extrapolation doesn't change the fundamental observation.
The universe is expanding and the expansion must have started some time.

If you think that is wrong, then explain why- without breaking the conservation laws.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 17/11/2020 01:39:04
Hubble law is correct by 100%
You seem unaware of what that law is.
Kindly inform us, with reference.

Quote
I have stated that only the extrapolation is incorrect
The law is an extrapolation, not a law about what is observered, but one about (given a recession velocity) where a galaxy actually is now, not where it appears.

However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0"

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."
That's the simplest arithmetic.  If two objects are increasing their separation at a rate of 10 parsecs per century and are currently 1.4 billion parsecs apart, then, barring significant acceleration, they were very close to each other 140 million centuries ago. The whole theory hangs on that simple relation.

Quote
This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.
We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.
Yes, I notice anything that makes sense gets thrown in the garbage with you. We've come to expect it.

Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:
V (velocity) = H0 * D
Funny, but I see no mention of redshift in that.

Quote
While
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)
Reference please.  This only works in Newtonian physics.  Special relativity gives an entirely different relation that has been verified in the lab, and even SR is not applicable to cosmological scales since the universe is not Minkowskian. The cosmological relation between V and Z derives from various solutions to Einstein's field equations.  I use the charts published, and which I've posted before.  The v=cz line is nowhere near reality except at very low speeds where Newtonian mechanics is a simple approximation.

The relation between V and D (distance) is also not linear until the extrapolation (which you deny above) is done. The empirical numbers tell a different story, since objects with sufficiently fast recession rates appear closer than objects with slower recession rates. This is exactly as the model predicts.
 
Quote
Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.
As that understanding is due to BBT, then this whole issue should join the BBT at the garbage.
No. That understanding is due to GR theory, not BBT.

Quote
As I have stated - Hubble law is 100% correct and valid in any Universe.
...
A galaxy with a redshift of 13 should be located at a distance of:
13 * 17GLY = 221 GLY
Where was that galaxy 14 billion years ago then?

Quote
With regards to the CMBR
The redshift of the CMBR is 1100
Therefore, we get the CMBR from a minimal sphere which its radius is about:
1100 * 1.7 G = 1,870 GLY = 1.87 Trillion LY
How would we see it at all with 1.87 trillion light years of stars and other matter in the way?  I know you deny basic stellar dynamics where stars actually consume fuel and burn themselves out after a few millions to billions of years, so I'll skip the bit about why there's any stars left at all.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: puppypower on 17/11/2020 12:13:01
One problem we face, looking out at the universe, is the time delay between the energy signals and the matter that produced it. By the time the energy reaches us the matter is doing something different from the original time is gave off the signals. For example, if I sent a video image from Mars, there is a time delay before it reaches earth. When they finally see the image, it appears I was at my desk. However, in reality I left my desk to use the rest room, when the image reaches the earth. Those on the earth cannot be convinced that I left the room since the visual data does not show that. They need to work with what they appear to see.

In terms of Einstein's concept of relative reference, this is only valid for the visual signals we get,  It is not valid for the matter that created the signals. The matter is confined by the conservation of energy. If had a train and a man at the station they can appear to be in relative motion. This is true of the visual signals, but not for the matter since the energy balance is not the same in both situations. The train has more mass and more kinetic energy for the same relative motion. This is why we needed  to add dark matter and dark energy. The energy balance created by relative reference was not working out. It needed fudge.

Say we were at the start of the big bang. Since al the matter of the universe was made from her beginning materials, our position in space and time should overlap everything else at the beginning. The oldest observations already came and went since energy moves faster than matter. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!

One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo. The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last, which means it has echoed many time to give the impression of vast distances and time. This could also explain why these signals are not all in one spot even though we started with a singularity.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/11/2020 12:27:20
This is why we needed  to add dark matter and dark energy.
Not really.
. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!
Quite easily.
Even if you take the simplistic model of an explosion with a "middle".
radiation from "on the far side of the middle" would take a long time to get here.
The real answer is that while matter can't  outpace light through space, space itself can expand, and that delays and red shifts the light.


One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo.
What did it reflect from?
God's shaving mirror?
The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last,
Which is another reason to abandon the idea.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/11/2020 11:35:46
. Hubble Law
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:48:05
Hubble law is correct by 100%
You seem unaware of what that law is.
Kindly inform us, with reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at speeds proportional to their distance."
So, if our scientists call it Hubble law, why I can't call it at the same name?

2. Extrapolation
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:35:51
However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0"

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."
That's the simplest arithmetic.  If two objects are increasing their separation at a rate of 10 parsecs per century and are currently 1.4 billion parsecs apart, then, barring significant acceleration, they were very close to each other 140 million centuries ago. The whole theory hangs on that simple relation.

The law is an extrapolation, not a law about what is observered, but one about (given a recession velocity) where a galaxy actually is now, not where it appears.
Well, extrapolation might work only if you have clear information about the maximal size and shape of the Universe.
About 100 Years ago, our scientists have considered that we are living in a finite compact Universe. They were sure that Universe has a very limited size and bounded (with clear edge)
Therefore, it was quite clear why they have used the idea of extrapolation at that time (and got the BBT idea).
However, today we know that the Universe has no edge.
If today our Universe has no edge then also 1B years ago, 5 BY, 10BY or even 15 years ago it had no edge.
Theoretically, if we could go back in time and observe the Universe with our current technology, we would surly see that the farthest galaxy that we see today is closer.
However, we might see other furthest galaxies that we don't see them today any more.
Therefore, without clear knowledge about the current maximal size and shape of our universe and without understanding the correct current location of the furthest galaxy in our Universe - we can't set any sort of extrapolation.

There is also severe difference between small scale and large scale.
In the large scale we see that galaxies are moving away from us.
However, in local scale we clearly see that galaxies are moving in all directions.
For example - Andromeda is moving directly to the MY galaxy (while our galaxy cross the space at about 600Km/s).
It is expected that Andromeda should collide with the Milky way in about two billion years from now.
Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.
Therefore, how can we claim that all the galaxies were close together 14 Billion years ago?
Our scientists can claim that it is due to Gravity. However, the Milky Way and Andromeda are very massive galaxies, so it is not realistic that they would be affected by gravity of smaller galaxies.
If we discuss about gravity – let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?

Let me use one more example:
Let's assume that we look at ships as they cross the Atlantic Ocean.
Let's assume that we have no idea about the size of the ocean or the planet but we can measure the velocity and direction of each ship.
Based on that data and extrapolation we can try to estimate from where they are coming and to where they are going.
However, if we don't know the real size and shape of our planet, this data woun't helps us.
In the same token, the data about the direction and velocity of galaxies won't help us without clear information about the size and shape of the Universe!!!
As the Universe is unbounded then at any direction that we might look there is almost unlimited no of galaxies. We can consider it as unbounded rope with unbounded no of galaxies.
As we run the time back, we actually pull back that rope with its unlimited no. of galaxies.
So, how do we that if we go back to 14 BY ago, the length of this rope would be exactly zero?

We also need to understand that the galactic view that we see in our current location should be similar at any location in the Universe. That is correct also for a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
So, if we could jump over there we should see similar view as we see from our planet.
The nearby galaxies are moving in all direction at relatively low velocities (in the range of only few hundred Km per sec), while there are further galaxies in all directions and some of them are located 221 Gly away.
Therefore, theoretically we can jump again and again by 221 GLY in a direct line (each time to the furthest galaxy) without any end. Therefore, after 10 Jumps we can get to a galaxy that is located 2210 Gly away and carry a redshift of 130 with regards to our location
We can't see it any more from our planet as it is far away, but we might get its radiation as integrated "white noise radiation" in the CMBR.
Therefore, I would expect that the redshift of the CMBR (which is based on the radiation of billions over billions galaxies around us) would include wide spectrum of redshifts (while the strogest redshift is 1100).

After all of that information - it is our obligation to solve the enigma of the size and shape of the unbounded Universe including the issue of small scale before we try to make any sort of extrapolation.
 
3. Redshift:

Quote
Quote
While
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)
Reference please.  This only works in Newtonian physics.  Special relativity gives an entirely different relation that has been verified in the lab, and even SR is not applicable to cosmological scales since the universe is not Minkowskian. The cosmological relation between V and Z derives from various solutions to Einstein's field equations.  I use the charts published, and which I've posted before.  The v=cz line is nowhere near reality except at very low speeds where Newtonian mechanics is a simple approximation.
Redshift is all about velocity!!!
The redshift is based on Dopler effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
"The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source.[1] It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842."
So, when we see an object with a redshift - Its redshift is a signature for its velocity.
Hence, the redshift is the most important information that we can observe at each galaxy, object or radiation
"The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light is of great use in astronomy and results in either a so-called redshift or blueshift. It has been used to measure the speed at which stars and galaxies are approaching or receding from us; that is, their radial velocities."
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2020 12:52:11
Redshift is all about velocity!!!
The redshift is based on Dopler effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
Perhaps we have finally reached the root of your lack of understanding.
You are looking at the wrong wiki page.
The right one is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
And that's why you are mistaken (as I have repeatedly pointed out) in thinking that the reshift is a linear function.

I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?

Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: puppypower on 18/11/2020 14:54:16
This is why we needed  to add dark matter and dark energy.
Not really.
. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!
Quite easily.
Even if you take the simplistic model of an explosion with a "middle".
radiation from "on the far side of the middle" would take a long time to get here.
The real answer is that while matter can't  outpace light through space, space itself can expand, and that delays and red shifts the light.


One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo.
What did it reflect from?
God's shaving mirror?
The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last,
Which is another reason to abandon the idea.

Say we start with the BB singularity.  It represents all the matter and energy that will become our universe. Since everything is overlapping as a singularity, if we were part of it, we could see everything simultaneously. Since we are part of the singularity, there will also be echo because of the limits imposed by the singularity. It cannot be called as singularity and allow signals to leave. That would need to be called something else such as a leaky singularity.

The question becomes what was beyond the singularity. Was it empty space? The answer appears to be no, since empty space will make the singularity leaky. The other alternative, is beyond the singularity is the speed of light reference. The singularity is different from the speed of light  reference, since it contains the beginning of inertial space and time, and matter cannot go there so it stays contained. 

Energy moves at the speed of light. However, energy is not entirely in the speed of light reference.  It also has finite attributes in space and time; wavelength and frequency. These finite attributes do not exist in the speed of light reference, since at the speed of light, all measure of space and time become limiting and homogeneous. The speed of light reference, beyond the inertial singularity, will create a barrier and echo chamber for any andall inertial attributes.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/11/2020 16:09:05
Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?

It probably has, but what we observe is what was there then!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2020 18:54:12
Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?

It probably has, but what we observe is what was there then!
Nope, that doesn't work.
In an infinite amount of time- which is the fairy tale the OP tells- the light would have left long ago.
Say we start with the BB singularity. 
Do you understand that the CMBR is not the light from the "big bang"?
It is the light from the recombination event when the universe cooled down enough for hydrogen atoms to form.
...  the speed of light reference. ... the speed of light  reference,
Until you actually explain what that means- and you have been asked plenty of times, you should not clutter up other threads with it.
Stop hijacking this meaningless nonsense by Dave lev, with your meaningless nonsense.
Go start a thread called "this is what the speed of light reference means..." or something.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 19/11/2020 03:20:06
. Hubble Law
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:48:05
Hubble law is correct by 100%
You seem unaware of what that law is.
Kindly inform us, with reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at speeds proportional to their distance."
So, if our scientists call it Hubble law, why I can't call it at the same name?
I’m not protesting what you call it.  What you just said contradicts these statements, which prompted my comment about your not knowing what that law says:
Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift
Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
The law, as quoted from the wiki page there, make zero mention of redshift, so it does not in fact tell us about the ratio between distances to redshift.

Quote
About 100 Years ago, our scientists have considered that we are living in a finite compact Universe. They were sure that Universe has a very limited size and bounded (with clear edge)
Reference please.

Quote
However, today we know that the Universe has no edge.
Reference please.

Quote
Theoretically, if we could go back in time and observe the Universe with our current technology, we would surly see that the farthest galaxy that we see today is closer.
How far back?  Yesterday?  Sure, furthest galaxy X was closer.  However, we might see other furthest galaxies that we don't see them today any more.[/quote]Only if they cease emitting light, which seems very unlikely for a young galaxy. So nonsense.  More galaxies come into view with time, they don’t blink out.

Quote
It is expected that Andromeda should collide with the Milky way in about two billion years from now.
More than twice that time, but yes.
Quote
Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.
These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other. Extrapolating backwards thus must take into account this acceleration (and all other significant masses nearby) that you are ignoring here.

Quote
Therefore, how can we claim that all the galaxies were close together 14 Billion years ago?
What else do you suggest?  Something receding today at 0.4c was moving towards us last Tuesday?  How are you going to account for that kind of acceleration.

Quote
However, the Milky Way and Andromeda are very massive galaxies, so it is not realistic that they would be affected by gravity of smaller galaxies.
Nobody suggests otherwise, unless there’s a helluva lot of small galaxies, and they’re mostly on one side and not the other.

Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
Again, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/11/2020 06:18:05
Quote
Quote
Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.
These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other.
This assumption could be the biggest mistake of the modern science.
We all know how gravity really works.

So let's verify the facts:
Andromeda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
Distance   2.54 ± 0.11 Mly
Andromeda Mass   (1.5±0.5)×10^12[9] M☉
Redshift   z = −0.001001(minus sign indicates blueshift)[1]
Helio radial velocity   −301 ± 1 km/s[2]
Milky Way -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
Mass   (0.8–1.5)×10^12 M☉
Velocity - The Milky Way as a whole is moving at a velocity of approximately 600 km per second with respect to extragalactic frames of reference.

Based on those facts:
How could it be that those two galaxies (with all their massive mass - about 1.5×10^12 M☉ each)  which are located so far away could have any sort of gravity impact on each other?
Don't you agree that if they should collide in about 2 BY then in the past they were much further away?
So, first we have to understand how far away they had been 5By, or 10 By ago.
So, why can't we assume that in the past the distance could be higher than 10Mly or even than 20 Mly
Then we can try to prove how from that ultra far location they could set any sort of mutual gravity attraction.
Please use the following formula for gravity:
F = G M1 M2 / R^2
How could it be that the milky way is crossing the space at 600Km/s due to this mutual gravity attraction?
How could it be that Andromeda is approaching the MY at a velocity of 300 Km/sec due to the mutual gravity attraction?
There is one more key issue:
If those supper massive galaxies have a mutual gravity attraction, this atraction should be increased as they come closer and closer.
Do we see any change in there velocities as they come closer?

You have totally ignore my message about Triangulum Galaxy:
i
let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?

This galaxy is much closer to Andromeda.
As it is moving away from Andromeda, then in the past it was much closer.
So, try to verify the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy 10 By ago
Then Try to use the gravity formula and find that 10 By ago, the gravity force between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy was much stronger than Andromeda to the Milky way.
This might be even valid for today data.
So, how could it be that due to relatively high mutual gravity attraction Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda while the Milky way with much less mutual gravity attraction is moving in the direction of Andromeda?

Sorry -
The following idea that : "These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other." is totally unrealistic.

Those galaxies are moving in space due to their momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction.":
As there is no friction in space, and as they are (almost) no affected by any sort of attraction by any nearby small galaxy, those massive galaxies keep their constant momentum in space
Just by chance Andromeda and MY are moving to each other!.

So, all the massive galaxies are crossing the space due to their momentum.
However, we can clearly say that the small galaxies are affected by the gravity force of the nearby big galaxies.

As Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda,  it is clear that in the past it was part of Andromeda.
Hence, this galaxy had been ejected from Andromeda.

Once you understand that key issue, you would understand how the Universe really works.

So, we must understand first how the Universe works in small scale and then try to find a solution for large scale.
Our science community ignores the small scale and therefore fails to understand how our universe really works.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2020 08:42:08
Dave, you keep missing this.
I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?

Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 19/11/2020 09:49:05
Quote from: Dave Lev
Don't you agree that if they should collide in about 2 BY then in the past they were much further away?
So, first we have to understand how far away they had been 5By, or 10 By ago.
So, why can't we assume that in the past the distance could be higher than 10Mly or even than 20 Mly
The Milky Way and Andromeda are part of our Local Cluster of galaxies, which our bound together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

But each galaxy has its own "peculiar motion" (random velocity) - some will be away from us, and some will be towards us. It just so happens that Andromeda has a velocity that is towards the Milky Way Galaxy (us).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity#Cosmology

The expansion of the universe is so slight on the scale of a galaxy cluster that it will not disrupt the local cluster (not with the current rate of expansion).

Because these local galaxies are in orbit around each other, their average separation today is pretty much the same as it was 1 BYA or 5 BYA.

Quote
If those supper massive galaxies have a mutual gravity attraction, this atraction should be increased as they come closer and closer.
Do we see any change in there velocities as they come closer?
It was only in the 1920s that it became accepted that Andromeda was an "island universe", separate from our own galaxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Distinction_from_other_nebulae

So we have been observing Andromeda as a separate galaxy for about a century.
- Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxy will collide in about 5 BY. Their speed will increase as they get closer - say, in 2 billion years.
- But the change in velocity over the past century is miniscule, as the distance has hardly changed in the past century (as a percentage of the total distance).

There is another complication: We can measure the radial velocity quite accurately, but we can't measure the "sideways" velocity nearly as accurately.
- So while we are sure that Andromeda is heading towards us at the moment, we can't tell if it will hit us or miss us
- If it is a direct hit, almost all the stars will pass between each other, since both galaxies are mostly empty space. But clouds of hydrogen in each galaxy will collide with each other, which should produce a nice light show...
- Neither galaxy is a solid object, so even if there isn't a direct collision, the closer edges of the two galaxies will be distorted by their close approach.

People have tried to simulate what might happen. This one assumes an initial "miss", followed by several more direct collisions:
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/11/2020 17:25:05
The Milky Way and Andromeda are part of our Local Cluster of galaxies, which our bound together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group
Where do you see in that articale a confirmation for the idea that The Milky Way and Andromeda are bounded together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.
This is a pure imagination.
Both galaxies are moving in a direct line and at a constant velocity.
So, how can you claim for any sort of "orbiting their common barycenter"
Prove please it!

Please be aware that the total mass of the My and Andromeda is estimate at the range of  (0.8–1.5)×10^12 M☉.
So, they should act as some sort of binary star:
https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/021/s3.html
"In a binary system, two objects orbit about their common center of mass like this"
Do we really see that kind of orbiting?

But each galaxy has its own "peculiar motion" (random velocity) - some will be away from us, and some will be towards us. It just so happens that Andromeda has a velocity that is towards the Milky Way Galaxy (us).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity#Cosmology
That by itself proves that the Milky Way and Andromeda aren't bounded together by mutual gravitation, and aren't orbiting any kind of common barycenter.
The expansion of the universe is so slight on the scale of a galaxy cluster that it will not disrupt the local cluster (not with the current rate of expansion).
So far our scientists didn't see any sort of expansion in the space of the Universe.
All we see is an expansion of the galaxies and that all.
As the BBT is incorrect then the idea of expansion in space is also incorrect.
Because these local galaxies are in orbit around each other, their average separation today is pretty much the same as it was 1 BYA or 5 BYA.
If there average separation was the same as it was 1BYA or 5BYA than it also should be the same in the next 5 BY.
Our scientists claim that they are going to collide in about 2BY. Therefore, the estimation that the average separation was the same in the past is also imagination.
Please be aware that when you claim for Orbiting around
- Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxy will collide in about 5 BY. Their speed will increase as they get closer - say, in 2 billion years.
Sorry, if they orbiting around a center of mass, they shouldn't collide at all.
- But the change in velocity over the past century is miniscule, as the distance has hardly changed in the past century (as a percentage of the total distance).
In real orbiting system the objects should change their directions and the velocities.
As we don't see and change in the direction of those galaxies in the past century and as they are moving head to head - they aren't orbiting around any sort of center of mass.


If it is a direct hit, almost all the stars will pass between each other, since both galaxies are mostly empty space.
That message by itself proves that our scientists don't have even a basic clue how galaxies really work.
Do you know that for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside?
So, as the MW galaxy cross the space at 600 Km sec it coiled with almost unlimited no of stars in the open space.
If those stars could pass into the galaxy, why don't we see them?
Sorry, the gravity of the MW pushes any star and any galaxy that stands in its path.
Nothing can penetrate into the galaxy.
So, the MW and Andromeda are moving head to head due to their momentum and not due to any sort of orbital gravity force.
Therefore, as we go back in the past there would be located further and further away.
14 By ago, they were much further than 5 By ago.
Therefore, the idea that 14 BY ago all the galaxies/matter were at a singularity point is just unrealistic.
Andromeda proves that the BBT is imagination!

What is your advice about Triangulum Galaxy?
et's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?

Dave, you keep missing this.
I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?

Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?

Well, I have already informed you that I do not wish to continue the discussion with you.
However, as you ask so nicely and as I have already answered this issue, I feel that I should reply to your message with the following quote:
At older age, he considered to reuse that constant in order to support the idea of new created particles
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."

So, Einstein fully supported the understanding that new particles should be created as time goes on!!!
This idea contradicts the BBT and fully supports Theory D as "Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant".
Therefore - from now on we must agree on the following facts
1. Einstein didn't accept the BBT
2. I have full approval from Einstein to claim that new particles could be created in our Universe.
So, it is all about the creation on new matter.


 
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2020 17:27:24
So, it is all about the creation on new matter.
So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.
It would make more sense to ignore your idea, wouldn't it?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/11/2020 17:36:39
So, it is all about the creation on new matter.
So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.
It would make more sense to ignore your idea, wouldn't it?
No.
You don't have to argue with me.
Now you face Mr Einstein.
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2020 18:52:17
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea
It's not that I think it is wrong.
It's that I can prove it is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.
Maths doesn't depend on observations.
So, unless you really don't think science has progressed in the last hundred years or so...
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/11/2020 11:15:46
It's not that I think it is wrong.
It's that I can prove it is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
What do you wish to prove with this nonsense?
The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.
Maths doesn't depend on observations.
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
Einstein is using his cosmological constant for the creation of new particles in order to overcome the conservation law.
Those new particles are created at the accretion disc of a Black hole.
The ratio between a particle to a Black hole is in less than  1/10000...100
Therefore, the cosmologic constant in this case is virtually zero.
However, our scientists are using the same cosmologic constant for a dark energy that is needed to set the acceleration in the space expansion of the Universe.
It is estimated that the dark energy ratio in the total mass/energy of the Universe is 70% while the real matter is only 4%.
So, if we compare the requested dark energy to a BH energy/mass it is clear that the ratio is 1* 100...000
Hence, the cosmological constant should be significantly high in order for the dark energy to bypass the conservation energy law. 
So, how do you dare to carry the conservation law for nothing?
So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.
Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?
Why you don't care that the dark energy is created out of nothing while it is 17.5 (70%/4%) times higher than the total real matter/mass in our whole Universe.
So, while the BBT imagination had delivered only the real matter (which represents only 4% of the total energy in our Universe), you and our scientists wish to believe that Einstein' cosmological constant should deliver 70% from that total energy.
There is one more key issue:
Our scientists claim that the space itself is increasing.
They have told us that even when the Universe was very small and highly concentrated the space expansion/inflation could overcome the Ultra gravity of that small universe.
Now they tell us that somehow a new imagination that is called Dark matter should set antigravity in order to accelerate the space expansion of the Universe.
So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?
If it is not affected, then the dark matter with its antigravity can't accelerate the space expansion.
Hence, you should set the dark matter in the garbage.
If it is affected - then 14 BY ago while the Universe was very small and dense with Ultra high gravity force - the expansion and the inflation couldn't work at all.
So, please try to find a solution for this contradiction.

The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.
Einstein is dead but his wisdom, knowledge and formulas are the base for our current understanding.
So, this dead scientist had offered us a living science.
Currently, our living scientists believe in a dead science.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.
Einstein had stated that the overall density of matter had to stay constant in an expanding Universe
Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)
Therefore - the density in our Universe MUST stay constant forever and ever. Hence, the CMBR of our current universe would stay the same forever and ever. That should be correct 100 By ago and 100 BY in the future.
Einstein had stated that the cosmological constant is responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expands

the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded
Therefore, new matter must be created in our Universe.

Who are you Mr BC to claim that Einstein is Wrong.
You and all of those BBT believers are wrong!!!
Shame on you!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/11/2020 12:05:13
What do you wish to prove with this nonsense?
It's not nonsense; but you are too far down the DK  river to recognise that the problem is your lack of understanding.
What it proves is that mass/ energy is conserved.
So THE MATHS PROVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles:
It takes no "daring" to point out that someone was wrong. It just takes proof, and I have presented that. It is not my fault that you can not understand it.





Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?
I already answered that.
It is related to the asymmetry of the start of the universe.
Again, it's not my fault that you don't understand.
So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?
Yes.
and the inflation couldn't work at all.
You made that claim without evidence.
I shall dismiss it the same way.
You are wrong.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.

This is absurd.
You talk about "Einstein's greatest mistake"; then you present him as if he is infallible.

It's very simple.
The maths shows he was wrong.
Mass/ energy is conserved.
Your idea is impossible.

It's not that I am saying that Einstein is wrong. Nobody cares about my opinion or yours.
The universe is saying he is wrong.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/11/2020 09:01:54
In the following article from Harvard it is stated:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
"No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? "
So, you and the 10,000 BBT scientists claim that they know – however, you all clearly don't know.
Einstein knew the answer for that.
Unfortunately you all reject his clear explanation.

Therefore, I would like to highlight several Key contradictions in the BBT with regards to the energy or "Energy conservation"

Let's try to understand the total energies in our Universe based on the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
"the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 69% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contributes 26% and 5%, respectively,"
Hence:
Ordinary (baryonic) matter contributes - 5%
Dark matter contributes - 26%
Dark energy contributes - 69%

So, if we compare the Dark matter/energy to the ordinary matter we get the following:
Ordinary matter = 1 OM
Dark Matter = 26/5 = 5.2 * OM
Dark Energy = 69/5 = 13.8 * OM

1. Ordinary Matter - OM
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4186.pdf
"The origin of matter remains one of the great mysteries in physics"
The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since this does not seem to have been the case, it is likely some physical laws must have acted differently or did not exist for matter and antimatter.
So, our scientists claim that "The origin of the Ordinary matter remains one of the great mysteries in physics"
That Ordinary matter had been delivered out of nothing and free of charge at the Moment of the bang that took place 14By ago.
At that time more than 99.9..9 of the new created particles pair at the Big bang moment have eliminated each other due to the idea that one is matter and the other is antimatter.
So, the OM (Ordinary matter) in the entire Universe represents just the 0.00..1 from the energy at the first moment of the Big Bang.
Therefore - it is clear that the energy that was needed for the BBT to create the whole Ordinary matter in our entire Universe was bigger by 10...0 times from the total energy in that OM.
I wonder how any scientist could accept this idea?
However, as it is free of charge then our scientists has no problem with that

2. Dark Matter = 26/5 = 5.2 * OM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/05/22/astroquizzical-dark-matter-formed/?sh=4d0a67a354dd
if dark matter was present so early in the Universe, it probably was formed in the big bang. At the very least, it couldn’t have been formed later,"
So, the dark matter had been created at the Big Bang moment.
Therefore, we can claim that at the Big Bang the total energy/gravity in the infinite compact Universe is equal to
OM + Dark Matter = 1 OM + 5.2OM = 6.2OM
BC claims that the expansion is affected by Gravity:
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46
So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?
Yes.
So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?
If dark energy should accelerate the expansion in space while it represents antigravity, how could it be that a gravity of 6.2 OM that are concentrated at infinite compact early Universe couldn't prevent the expansion?
This is one more  key contradiction in the BBT.

3. Dark Energy = 69/5 = 13.8 * OM
BC claims that it is due to asymmetry of the start of the universe.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46
Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?
I already answered that.
It is related to the asymmetry of the start of the universe.
However, the asymmetry issue is all about matter and antimatter.
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem
"The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter."

So, how that asymmetry could create any sort of dark energy?
How could it be that the dark energy is located exactly at the correct locations in the Universe inorder to set the uniform accelaration expansion in space.

In any case, you wish to believe that at the Big Bang moment a total energy of OM + Dark matter which represents a gravity of 6.2 OM had been set together with a Dark energy which represents antigravity energy of 13.8 OM comes for free, while you ignore the the 13.8OM antigravity of the dark energy is significantly higher than the OM and even from the OM + dark matter.
So, if there was dark energy at the Early Universe with its ultra antigravity - Not even a single galaxy or a single star could be created.

Sorry.
I prefer to stay with Einstein theory.

Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.
Einstein had stated that the overall density of matter had to stay constant in an expanding Universe
Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant
Therefore - the density in our Universe MUST stay constant forever and ever. Hence, the CMBR of our current universe would stay the same forever and ever. That should be correct 100 By ago and 100 BY in the future.
Einstein had stated that the cosmological constant is responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expands
The constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded.
Therefore, based on Einstein new matter must be created in our Universe.


Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles:
It takes no "daring" to point out that someone was wrong. It just takes proof, and I have presented that. It is not my fault that you cannot understand it.
So, Einstein is just "someone" for you and you also claim that he is wrong.
So THE MATHS PROVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG.
The math that our scientists are using is based on Einstein formula and on its cosmological constant.
They are using that constant to confirm the dark energy which is equal in its energy to 13.8 OM.
However, when Einstein by himself wish to use that constant for the creation of new particles (while each particle represents 0.000....00001% of OM energy - then you raise the energy conservation flag and claim that Einstein is wrong.

Sorry - This isn't science.
You take the whole energy of the Universe for free, add the dark matter and the dark energy exactly at the correct locations, at the correct densities and at the requested time frame in order to get the requested results.
So, during the era of recombination, the dark energy might be a big problem - therefore you ignore it.
You only call for its help 5 By ago.
This isn't science - this is a dream.
Einstein theory and wisdom represents the real meaning of real science.
He had stated that the BBT is wrong, therefore the BBT is wrong.
Based on Einstein Theory: New particles are created at the accretion disc of the BH with our without your confirmation.

I have no intention to argue with you about the New created particles process as it based on Einstein wisdom & Theory.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/11/2020 12:29:11
So, you and the 10,000 BBT scientists
It's more like 8,000,000 scientists on one side and you on the other.
Yet you think you are right...
Do you see why we are laughing at you?

Einstein knew the answer for that.
No he didn't. He had an opinion, but that's all.
Unfortunately you all reject his clear explanation.
Because we have proven that it is wrong. Once again, we are talking about tegh observation that, to every complex problem there is a solution which is simple obvious... and wrong.

Therefore, I would like to highlight several Key contradictions in the BBT with regards to the energy or "Energy conservation"
You are only highlighting your own misunderstanding.

The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
Exactly the same is true of any idea of the continuous creation of matter.
You have just destroyed your own idea.
It is unfortunate that you lack the understanding to recognise this (even though it has been made clear to you before).


So, how that asymmetry could create any sort of dark energy?
Nobody ever said it did.
They are two different problems.
We don't really know where darke energy came from. We don't know why there is more matter than antimatter.

It would be better if you understood the theory you are arguing against but- as usual- your D K syndrome kicks in and you presume that you are better than the rest of the world and magically do not need to learn.


At that time more than 99.9..9 of the new created particles pair at the Big bang moment have eliminated each other due to the idea that one is matter and the other is antimatter.
So, the OM (Ordinary matter) in the entire Universe represents just the 0.00..1 from the energy at the first moment of the Big Bang.
We don't know that.
It is possible that the universe only created normal matter.
Once you accept that the symmetry must have been broken you have to accept that you don't know how severely broken it was.
Also, if "most" of the universe was destroyed in the way you suggest, then it must have been converted to energy- an unimaginably large amount of energy.
It would mean that the universe would have been extraordinarily hot. Every single particle would have enough energy to raise it to very near the speed of light.

Why is matter still here?
Where has that energy gone?

So we can certainly question the idea that most of the early universe was annihilated.
Or we can say that's what kicked off the expansion of the universe which we can still see today.





BC claims that it is due to asymmetry of the start of the universe.
No I don't.
But again, you aren't well enough informed to understand what I said, but you are deluded enough about your ability that you think you understand.



However, the asymmetry issue is all about matter and antimatter.
No, that's a separate issue (it also kills your idea,but it's a different death).
The symmetry which kills your idea is about time.
But you don't understand it and dismissed it as nonsense.
Here it is again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

It proves, mathematically, that the creation of mass/ energy is impossible in our universe.






The math that our scientists are using is based on Einstein formula
No.
The maths that science is relying on is based on the work of Emmy Noether.
It was written before Einstein's work was published.
And if he had read (and understood) it, he would have realised that it proved that he was wrong.


I have no intention to argue with you about the New created particles process as it based on Einstein wisdom & Theory.
Two problems; firstly it doesn't solve the matter/ antimatter problem.
Secondly, it only works until the BH evaporates. At that point all it has done is turn the mass of the BH into other particles and antiparticles (and radiation).
That process then stops because there is no longer a BH there.
So it can not possibly be the source of matter creation in the universe.


But that's science and you are going to stick with pathetically misplaced hero worship like this.



He had stated that the BBT is wrong, therefore the BBT is wrong.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 21/11/2020 13:36:22
I notice that you have zero confidence in your own ideas.  If anybody actually gets too close to a direct contradiction, you panic and go off on an assertion rant rather than address the inconsistency identified.
So my post 67 seemed to be one of these, any your reply 68 (a tiny bit of which is below) is one of those rants, used as a diversion to steer the conversation away from the obvious contradiction in your own assertions.
Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
Yet again, where (approximately is fine) do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?

You will evade this answer again, because it results in a direct contradiction with your assertions.


A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it.  That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda.  But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.

Velocity - The Milky Way as a whole is moving at a velocity of approximately 600 km per second with respect to extragalactic frames of reference.
Yes, but not not towards Andnromeda.

Based on those facts:
How could it be that those two galaxies (with all their massive mass - about 1.5×10^12 M☉ each)  which are located so far away could have any sort of gravity impact on each other?[/quote]They’re quite close (only 2.5 MLY away), and gravity has no limit to its impact. The 630 km/sec is due to much more distant gravitational masses (Virgo, 65 MLY away), the great attractor (250 MLY) and most importantly, the Shapley attractor, 250 MLY away.

Quote
How could it be that Andromeda is approaching the MY at a velocity of 300 Km/sec due to the mutual gravity attraction?
It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much.

I found an incredible map of all the major galaxies under the general influence of the Virgo supercluster. Instead of the usual 2D map you find, this one is fully 4D. You can see the curved path of the Milky way, and Andromeda coming in from the side a ways and cutting close behind us.  It will miss on its first pass, with the merger not completing for another 20-30 billion years.

https://earthsky.org/space/detailed-map-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster
Click on the 4D map at the top and play with it.  I’ve never seen better. You can rotate and zoom it.

What is missing is all the components that made up the various galaxies.  No mergers are depicted. It treats each known galaxy as a point mass. Hence there not being any initial galaxies near Virgo (the red mass) since they’ve since been absorbed and we don’t know about them today.
We’re the yellow galaxy, and Andromeda is the green one. Don’t know what the purple one represents.



In the following article from Harvard it is stated:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
"No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from?”
These questions seem to presume the very naive bias that the universe is an object created in time, rather than time being part of it. This unnamed author asks such questions seeming to steer the reader away from those biases and to answers that don’t make those assumptions, but you don’t quote that part I see.

Quote
“How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? "
Again, the question is asked and answered, but you omit that part. Eternal inflation theory answers this question, and the observation is strong evidence for the theory.
The article is a sort of base cosmology 101 preface that gets into no meat at all.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/11/2020 04:03:06
Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
Yet again, where (approximately is fine) do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?
You will evade this answer again, because it results in a direct contradiction with your assertions.
Well, I have already informed you that we must understand how the Universe works at small scale before we discuss about large scale:
So, we must understand first how the Universe works in small scale and then try to find a solution for large scale.
Our science community ignores the small scale and therefore fails to understand how our universe really works.
So, please - I promise to answer that question as soon as we clearly understand how it works in small scale.

However, in order to do so, we must understand how Triangulum/Andromeda Galaxies system works.
So, please read the following and advice:
You have totally ignore my message about Triangulum Galaxy:
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/11/2020 11:35:46
let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?

This galaxy is much closer to Andromeda.
As it is moving away from Andromeda, then in the past it was much closer.
So, try to verify the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy 10 By ago
Then Try to use the gravity formula and find that 10 By ago, the gravity force between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy was much stronger than Andromeda to the Milky way.
This might be even valid for today data.
So, how could it be that due to relatively high mutual gravity attraction Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda while the Milky way with much less mutual gravity attraction is moving in the direction of Andromeda?

Sorry -
The following idea that : "These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other." is totally unrealistic.

Those galaxies are moving in space due to their momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction.":
As there is no friction in space, and as they are (almost) no affected by any sort of attraction by any nearby small galaxy, those massive galaxies keep their constant momentum in space
Just by chance Andromeda and MW are moving to each other!.

So, all the massive galaxies are crossing the space due to their momentum.
However, we can clearly say that the small galaxies are affected by the gravity force of the nearby big galaxies.

As Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda,  it is clear that in the past it was part of Andromeda.
Hence, this galaxy had been ejected from Andromeda.

Once you understand that key issue, you would understand how the Universe really works.

Therefore, do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?


A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it.  That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda.  But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.
It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much.
Thanks for this great reply.
You actually confirm that Andromeda and MW do not orbit around any sort of center of mass.
So, they are not bonded by gravity force.


I found an incredible map of all the major galaxies under the general influence of the Virgo supercluster. Instead of the usual 2D map you find, this one is fully 4D. You can see the curved path of the Milky way, and Andromeda coming in from the side a ways and cutting close behind us.  It will miss on its first pass, with the merger not completing for another 20-30 billion years.

https://earthsky.org/space/detailed-map-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster
Click on the 4D map at the top and play with it.  I’ve never seen better. You can rotate and zoom it.
Well, that video shows that our scientists don't know how galaxies systems really works in local scale.
When Andromeda would be close enough to the Milky way (but not in a direct collision as they should miss the first path), they would shift away from each other. There will be no second path.
So, please wait with your question about that galaxy with a redshift of 13 and let's focus on Triangulum/Andromeda Galaxies system.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 22/11/2020 10:14:48
Quote from: Dave Lev
Our scientists claim that they are going to collide in about 2BY. Therefore, the estimation that the average separation was the same in the past is also imagination.
The first thing to say is that a galaxy is not a point object, it is an extended object.
- For stars in the arms of a galaxy, or planets in a Solar System, you can pretty much treat them as point objects (unless they come so close as to have a direct collision)
- But a galaxy can be disrupted by passing near another galaxy - we see this with the many stellar streams passing through our own galaxy, which are the disrupted remnants of dwarf galaxies that got too close.

The second thing is that orbital motion is governed by conservation of angular momentum.
- If two galaxies are to merge, the black holes at the center of these galaxies must shed a lot of angular momentum
- They do this by flinging many stars into the dark of intergalactic space, and you can see this in the simulation of the collision.

If you consider the Milky Way and Andromeda in isolation (say, in the frame of reference of their barycenter), and calculate the average separation of the stars in the Milky way galaxy and Andromeda galaxy, you will find that:
- The angular momentum remains constant throughout the collision
- the average separation of stars remains roughly constant during the collision.

If you now consider the Local Cluster in isolation (say, in the frame of reference of the Local Cluster's barycenter), and calculate the average separation of the galaxies, you will find that:
- The angular momentum remains constant throughout their orbits (including the motion of the Triangulum Galaxy)
- the average separation of galaxies remains roughly constant.
- That will include some small galaxies that are ejected from the Local Cluster, and some that merge with each other

I could extend that to Super Clusters too, but you get the idea...

Quote
Sorry, if they orbiting around a center of mass, they shouldn't collide at all.
Galaxies aren't point objects, they are diffuse objects.
- So even if they come close (which the Milky way & Andromeda will), they will be disrupted, and provided their relative velocity doesn't exceed their mutual escape velocity, their central black holes will (eventually) coalesce.
- In the process, the current spiral structure of both galaxies will be totally disrupted, and we will end up with something that looks more like an elliptical galaxy.

Quote
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles
Because it looks like Einstein didn't really believe it either, or he would have published it.

It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues.
- But in the end, he didn't go through with publishing it
- Whether he rejected it himself, or others persuaded him doesn't really matter - it didn't pass muster

Quote
So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?
It all has to do with the initial velocity.
1. If you try to fire a rocket into Earth orbit, and don't give it enough velocity, it will fall back straight away
2. If you give it just the right velocity (and angular momentum), it will go into orbit
3. If you give more than enough initial velocity (greater than escape velocity), it will continue outward forever  (ignoring atmospheric friction)

The same 3 scenarios apply at the scale of the whole universe (and Dark Matter is part of the whole universe, so it doesn't change the situation)
- The red-shift researchers in the 1990s were trying to work out which of these 3 scenarios was the correct one for the whole universe
- To their great surprise, they came up with a 4th scenario... Dark Energy

And Einstein's equations explain this, too (once you feed the new measurements into Einstein's equations and solve for the cosmological constant using the new data).
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2020 10:38:49
Well, I have already informed you that we must understand how the Universe works at small scale before we discuss about large scale:
Yes, for example, on the small scale we know that the creation of matter is impossible.
So we know that your idea is actually wrong.
We even have a mathematical proof of it.
And you ignore this and carry on with your fairy tale of continuous creation.

Why is that?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/11/2020 17:35:54
Quote
Quote
So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?
It all has to do with the initial velocity.
1. If you try to fire a rocket into Earth orbit, and don't give it enough velocity, it will fall back straight away
2. If you give it just the right velocity (and angular momentum), it will go into orbit
3. If you give more than enough initial velocity (greater than escape velocity), it will continue outward forever  (ignoring atmospheric friction)

The same 3 scenarios apply at the scale of the whole universe (and Dark Matter is part of the whole universe, so it doesn't change the situation)
- The red-shift researchers in the 1990s were trying to work out which of these 3 scenarios was the correct one for the whole universe
- To their great surprise, they came up with a 4th scenario... Dark Energy
Thanks for that excellent explanation.
So, our scientists have fully confirmed that none of the 3 scenarios is correct
However, what is the real meaning of "dark energy". Do we see it? Do you have an example for matter with antigravity?
The dark energy idea is one more evidence that the BBT is wrong and our scientists can't really fit it to our universe. Therefore, they are using that unrealistic idea which is called Dark energy.


And Einstein's equations explain this, too (once you feed the new measurements into Einstein's equations and solve for the cosmological constant using the new data).
Sorry, Einstein has told Us that the cosmological constant was his biggest mistake.
Why do you ignore that message?
In any case, even if you wish to add a constant, this constant should have a minor impact on the formula.
However - in order for the dark energy to work, its energy should be 13.5 times higher than the Ordinary matter.
So, using this constant for an energy which should create unrealistic activity as negative gravity and at that high amplitude (13.5times the OM) is really unrealistic.
Quote
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles
Because it looks like Einstein didn't really believe it either, or he would have published it.
It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues.
- But in the end, he didn't go through with publishing it
- Whether he rejected it himself, or others persuaded him doesn't really matter - it didn't pass muster
Well, the history is very clear:
Now you face Mr Einstein.
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!
So, you agree that: "It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues."
Therefore, it proves that Einstein estimated that new particles creation is feasible.
He even gave us the idea to use the cosmological constant for that:
so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
However, I assume that he didn't publish it as he couldn't offer real theory which could replace the BBT.
Therefore, as long as you accept the history that Einstein knew that new particles creation is feasible - is good enough for me.

Yes, for example, on the small scale we know that the creation of matter is impossible.
So we know that your idea is actually wrong.
The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.
So, we know that it is feasible.
We even have a mathematical proof of it.
In one hand our scientists are using the cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his will, in a magnitude of 13.5OM for "dark energy" which should generate antigravity while we don't have a clue about it.
On the other hand, while the history proves that Einstein fully supported the idea of new created matter by using that cosmological constant (but  at very low amplitude based on the ratio between Particle to OM) - you reject this message from Einstein.
Sorry - you have to accept Einstein message even if it had been given when he was older.

In any case, so far all of you had totally ignore my question about Triangulum.
Please answer the following:

do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2020 17:50:59

Sorry, Einstein has told Us that the cosmological constant was his biggest mistake.
Why do you ignore that message?

I'm not ignoring it; but you are.
He told us that he made a mistake.
So we know that he can be mistaken about thing.
So, if he said something which we know is wrong, we should accept that he was wrong.
Einstein is not God. He made mistakes.

The dark energy idea is one more evidence that the BBT is wrong and our scientists can't really fit it to our universe. Therefore, they are using that unrealistic idea which is called Dark energy.

No.
Until about 1990 the BBT worked well enough to explain what was observed.
The leading alternative- continuous creation didn't.
But, with better data and more detailed observations, in about 1990 we saw that there was something else going on.
We called that "something" dark energy.
We still don't know the details of what it is but the models won't work properly without it, so...
Do we see it?
yes we do. we see it as the departure of the older models and the current data.

Do you realize that trying to fit a continuous generation model would still need something like DE to make it work?
If you don't agree. show us your model- all of it, in detail.Show the calculations of the brightness and the spectrum of the background radiation, show us the calculations for the relative abundances of H, He and Li in the universe.

Show us the maths.


The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.
So, we know that it is feasible.
No
He thought it was feasible.
Emmy Noether proved it was not.

Do you not understand the difference?
EINSTEIN WAS VERY CLEARLY WRONG IF HE BELIEVED IN SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF MATTER.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 22/11/2020 19:04:26
Quote from: Dave Lev
So, it is all about the creation on new matter.
The Steady State model died by the 1960s (apart from a few hold-outs like Fred Hoyle), because it didn't fit the facts:
- The Steady State model suggested that matter would be formed between the expanding galaxies, which would then condense into new galaxies, so that old and new galaxies would coexist together. However, ultra-bright Quasars are seen only in the distant universe = early universe, so new galaxies were not being formed.
- The Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation is a relic of a time when the universe was hot enough to ionize Hydrogen. That is clearly not the case today.

See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests

Quote
Sorry, the gravity of the MW pushes any star and any galaxy that stands in its path.
Nothing can penetrate into the galaxy.
On the contrary, there are many galaxies which we see in the process of colliding and or merging. Galaxies are mostly empty space, and don't possess a force field like on Star Trek.

See the collection of images here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacting_galaxy#Galaxy_collision
Or this collection at Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=image+galaxy+collision&rlz=1C1GCEU_en-GBAU819AU820&sxsrf=ALeKk02iZxxQX9Ip0774hAPNh8M5nTojpw:1606071699379&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT-f-o65btAhXrzTgGHRRcCOQQ_AUoAXoECAUQAw&biw=1110&bih=684)
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/11/2020 19:13:51
Galaxies aren't point objects, they are diffuse objects.
- So even if they come close (which the Milky way & Andromeda will), they will be disrupted, and provided their relative velocity doesn't exceed their mutual escape velocity, their central black holes will (eventually) coalesce.
- In the process, the current spiral structure of both galaxies will be totally disrupted, and we will end up with something that looks more like an elliptical galaxy.
As you all have so high confidence in understanding how gravity works on galaxies and you clearly see the future of Andromeda and MW, why is it so difficult to answer my question about the early times of Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxies?

do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?

Let me help you with the following:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428674-800-vast-hydrogen-bridge-connects-two-galaxies/
"IT’S a bridge like no other. The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link."

Based on this data, the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum is about 782,000 Ly.
The size of Andromeda is more than 100,000 Ly. Therefore, they are quite close to each other.
That Hydrogen Bridge shows that those galaxies were close together in the past.
You have stated that when two spiral galaxies come closer they should be disrupted. So how could it be that both galaxies still keep their spiral shape?
How could it be that their central black holes didn't coalesce due to gravity when they were nearby in the past, while you are so sure that this is the destiny of the MW and Andromeda as they will come closer?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/11/2020 19:51:33
why is it so difficult to answer my question about the early times of Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxies?
We did.
It's just that you didn't understand it.

The galaxies are mainly empty space.
If you had two swarms of bees that were "on a collision course" would you expect them to actually bounce off each other, or would you expect them to pass through each other?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 23/11/2020 20:00:53
I can't read the New Scientist article - it's behind a paywall.
Quote from: New Scientist
The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link.
A galaxy in isolation is surrounded by clouds of gas - some of it blasted out by the galaxy's supermassive black hole, some of it neutral Hydrogen falling into the galaxy from intergalactic space to fuel new stars. And the invisible Dark Matter halo.
- When two galaxies pass close together, that outer fringe of Hydrogen and Dark Matter is affected more strongly than the disk of the galaxy, which is in turn affected more than the galactic bulge.
- What you are seeing is the drawn-out thread of Hydrogen.
- I imagine that the article will go on to say that this is a hint that the Dark Matter halo is also drawn out into a long thread.
- Many galaxies are surrounded by a halo of stars ejected by previous galactic mergers, and these are probably included in this thread. But they are extremely hard to see since their luminosity is so low.

This suggests that the Triangulum galaxy did pass close to Andromeda, but not close enough to disrupt the disk very much, and not enough to disrupt the galactic bulge, and definitely not enough to merge the supermassive black holes (on this flyby).
- As I have said before, while we can measure the radial velocities accurately, we can't measure the transverse velocity nearly as accurately, so it's hard to plot the past trajectory in 3 dimensions.
- The Gaia spacecraft is monitoring some stars outside our galaxy (including some in Andromeda and some in nearby dwarf galaxies), and this will greatly improve measurements of this transverse motion
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)#Significant_results

My summary: The Triangulum Galaxy was not emitted from the Andromeda galaxy, but it did pass close enough to disrupt its halo.
- Andromeda and Milky Way galaxy look like they are approaching close enough that their mutual gravity will deflect their direction of movement, and draw them together over the next 5-15 billion years, through multiple collisions, stopping and coming back for another collision. This is what you expect to see with gravitationally bound galaxies within a local cluster.
- We will have more precise measurements of this motion after Gaia's final data release occurs, around 2023.

None of this changes the fact that for distant galaxies (outside superclusters) are red-shifted at a rate that increases with distance. This implies (if you extrapolate backwards in time) that the universe started as a compact object which then expanded - what we now call "The Big Bang".

So the Triangulum Galaxy and the upcoming merger of Andromeda and the Milky Way is a (school of) red herring which has nothing to do with the Big Bang, which is the title of the thread.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/11/2020 19:23:30
- What you are seeing is the drawn-out thread of Hydrogen.
why do you change the real meaning of that that Hydrogen Bridge.
It is stated: "The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link."
As all the intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link it proves that Andromeda and Triangulum were very close together.
You have stated that spiral galaxies should be disrupted by passing near another galaxy.
But a galaxy can be disrupted by passing near another galaxy - we see this with the many stellar streams passing through our own galaxy, which are the disrupted remnants of dwarf galaxies that got too close.
In this case, the long Hydrogen bridge that exists between the two galaxies proves that they were very near by.
"Triangulum may be home to 40 billion stars"
So, based on your explanation we have to see the impact of the disruption due to the near by Andromeda galaxy.
However, we don't see any disruptions. Not in Andromeda and not in Triangulum.
In the following article it is even stated that Triangulum was a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy
"The galaxy is the smallest spiral galaxy in the Local Group and is believed to be a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy"
Therefore, as a satellite, Triangulum was orbiting around Andromeda in the past and they were bounded by gravity.
It is also stated:
"As mentioned above, M33 is linked to M31 by several streams of neutral hydrogen[51] and stars,[51] which suggests that a past interaction between these two galaxies took place from 2 to 8 billion years ago"
So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
Therefore, why do you claim that:
My summary: The Triangulum Galaxy was not emitted from the Andromeda galaxy, but it did pass close enough to disrupt its halo.
That galaxy is key evidence that Triangulum had been emitted from Andromeda.
Therefore, it is actually the Baby of Andromeda.
Mighty spiral galaxy as Andromeda can produce new particles, new stars, new BH and even new dwarf galaxies.
Andromeda is the Mother Galaxy.
All the stars, gas clouds, clusters, dwarf galaxies around this mighty galaxy including Triangulum are the direct babies of that galaxy.
This galaxy is moving faster than the Milky way.
A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it.  That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda.  But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.
It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much..
As the Milky way cross the space at 600 Km sec, while Andromeda is moving 110Km/s faster, then in total its velocity is about 710 Km/sec.
Triangulum also moves in our direction at higher velocity:
"A velocity of 190 ± 60 km/s relative to the Milky Way"
Our scientists consider that there is a possibility for the MW collide with this galaxy:
"Two other possibilities are a collision with the Milky Way before the Andromeda Galaxy arrives"

In the following image we even see that it still orbits around the Andromeda:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
Conclusion:
Triangulum was part of Andromeda.
This galaxy was a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy. It was orbiting around Andromeda and continues to orbit.
Therefore, it was emitted from Andromeda.
This proves that triangulum is the Baby galaxy of Andromeda
It is not the only baby.
All the dwarf galaxies around Andromeda are direct products of Andromeda and all are drifting outwards. In the same token - all the dwarf galaxies around the Milky way had been created by the Milky way.
In order to achieve it - New particles must be created at the accretion disc of the SMBH.
Einstein had confirmed this activity.

Once you understand that observation - you actually can fully understand how our real universe works at small scale and large scale.
EINSTEIN WAS VERY CLEARLY WRONG IF HE BELIEVED IN SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF MATTER.
You are very wrong!!!
Einstein didn't tell us how and where new particles are created.
He just told us that it is real. He gave us the formula for that.
I have found the correct location for the new particle creation which is the accretion disc.


Quote from: Dave Lev on 22/11/2020 17:35:54
The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.
So, we know that it is feasible.
No
He thought it was feasible.
Emmy Noether proved it was not.
Based on the following it seems that Emmy Noether proves that energy may not be conserved “locally” but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics

A problem had cropped up in Albert Einstein’s new theory of gravity, general relativity, which had been unveiled earlier in the year. It seemed that the theory did not adhere to a well-established physical principle known as conservation of energy, which states that energy can change forms but can never be destroyed. Total energy is supposed to remain constant. Noether, a young mathematician with no formal academic appointment, gladly accepted the challenge.
She resolved the issue head-on, showing that energy may not be conserved “locally” — that is, in an arbitrarily small patch of space — but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large.
So, Emmy Noether supports the idea that energy may not be conserved “locally” as Einstein had offered.
The meaning of that is that in local aria new particles could be created.

In any case
As Einstein had stated that new particles could be created - then even if all the BBT scientists (including you) will claim that Einstein is wrong - it won't Help you.
Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!
New particles are created at any BH accretion disc at any given moment with or without your permission!!!
Those new created particles would keep the density of the Universe forever and ever as Einstein had stated.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 24/11/2020 20:38:48
Quote from: Dave Lev
Therefore, as a satellite, Triangulum was orbiting around Andromeda in the past and they were bounded by gravity.
...
So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
It sounds like you are drawing a false analogy from "Satellites in Earth orbit were launched from Earth. Therefore the Triangulum Galaxy in orbit around Andromeda Galaxy must have been launched from Andromeda Galaxy."

Cosmologists are unsure how supermassive black holes reached their current size. They think that part of the story is that in the denser early universe, mergers of nearby early galaxies was quite common.

We see this process continuing at a slower rate today (in our less-dense universe) within local clusters of galaxies which are bound together gravitationally. With the Gaia data, we should be able to better predict the timing of Andromeda merging with the Milky Way, and whether Triangulum will merge first, or whether it will escape this train wreck, surviving for a later collision.

Quote
I have found the correct location for the new particle creation which is the accretion disc.
It is true that Stephen Hawking predicted particle creation at the event horizon of a black hole, at the inner edge of an accretion disk.
- But these are not new particles, but the quantum residue of matter that previously fell into the black hole.
- And the rate of production at a black hole is far too low to make up for the expansion of the universe (in fact, it is far lower than the infalling radiation from the CMBR, let alone infalling matter from the accretion disk)..

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 20:53:05
Based on the following it seems that Emmy Noether proves that energy may not be conserved “locally” but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics

The whole universe is "at large" i.e. in the class where your idea is wrong.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 20:56:52
The meaning of that is that in local aria new particles could be created.
No, it is not.
What it means is that you can "borrow and lend" energy and mass locally, but you aren't allowed to have them leave the "local" area. So, for example,  you can't use them to create a universe.


Did you not realise that I could be aware of this story and still say you were wrong?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 20:58:35
Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!
Get a room.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 25/11/2020 07:53:46
Quote from: Dave Lev
As all the intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link it proves that Andromeda and Triangulum were very close together.
...So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
Have a look at the mice galaxies: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020506.html

You will see that in this case, the two galaxies are joined by a visible stream of stars, and there is a corresponding stream of stars extending far beyond both galaxies.
- The galaxy at the left has a rather distorted spiral structure (the one of the right is seen edge-on, so we can't see very much of its spiral structure).
- This is what happens when two galaxies pass very close to each other - stars get dragged out of their normal path around the galaxy

Now compare the Triangulum galaxy: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191231.html

It has a regular spiral shape, with very little distortion.
- The article you quoted indicates that there is a hydrogen bridge (and dark matter bridge) between Triangulum and Andromeda. Both of them are invisible to telescopes.
- This shows that the Andromeda and Triangulum did not approach very closely, as stars have not been torn away from both galaxies
- Even though Triangulum is probably in orbit around Andromeda, it is so far away that it's own gravity is much stronger than the disturbance of Andromeda, leaving the spiral arms undistorted
- At best, the outer halo of Andromeda and Triangulum overlapped, forming the Hydrogen bridge.

These couple of pictures from NASA show that Triangulum was not emitted from Andromeda.
 
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/11/2020 17:11:05
Did you not realise that I could be aware of this story and still say you were wrong?
In order to support your BBT imagination you are ready to do whatever it takes to confuse me.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong and new particles should be created in order to keep the density of the Universe as the galaxies expand.
Therefore, you claim that he is wrong.
You have stated that the "Emmy Noether theory" is a proof for your wrong imagination and this is a lie.
In the article it is clearly stated that her theory fully supports Einstein understanding with regards to conservation of energy,:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
"A problem had cropped up in Albert Einstein’s new theory of gravity, general relativity, which had been unveiled earlier in the year. It seemed that the theory did not adhere to a well-established physical principle known as conservation of energy, which states that energy can change forms but can never be destroyed. Total energy is supposed to remain constant. Noether, a young mathematician with no formal academic appointment, gladly accepted the challenge".
Therefore, your with the "local" or without it - it is very clear that "Emmy Noether theory" doesn't contradicts Einstein Theory/Understanding.
Hence, you clearly lie when you have stated that "Emmy Noether theory" contradicts Einstein.
In any case, I'm not going to argue with you about Einstein as he is the greatest scientist in the last century.
The whole astronomy science is based on his formulas.
So, we all must accept his clear understanding & messages.
As Einstein had confirmed that the BBT is wrong - then the BBT is wrong!!!
As Einstein had stated that new particles are created in order to keep the density of the Universe - Then new articles are created.
Unfortunately, Einstein had passed away before finding the explanation how this new created particles could explain the expansion in the galaxies while keeping the density of the Universe..
My job is to explain that last missing section in Einstein theory.
This missing section is called -
Galaxy over galaxy (or if you wish: Rocket over rocket)
This missing section fully explains our entire Universe in small scale and in large scale.
No need for Dark matter and no need for Dark energy.
We all should set those dark ideas including all the BBT imagination at the garbage and open our mind for Einstein Theory
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:23:30
Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!
Get a room.
Yes, I'm going to stay at Einstein Room as he is fully correct.
Anyone who really cares about real science must stay at that room.
As you claim that Einstein is incorrect, As you lie to support your unrealistic ideas -  please stay away from this room and from my threads.
You aren't welcome anymore!
Cosmologists are unsure how supermassive black holes reached their current size. They think that part of the story is that in the denser early universe, mergers of nearby early galaxies was quite common.
Those unsure Cosmologists should join us in Einstein Room.
Once they accept the idea of new creation particles - they will know how suppermassive black holes reached their current size without eating any matter for outside.
They would know that new particles pair are created near the event of horizon. Both with positive Mass but with carry negative charged with regards to each other.
They would know how that the supper massive BH eats one particle out of the two and ejects the other one to the accretion disc. Therefore, it is called - picky eater.
So it isn't a picky eater as it is eating 50% from all the new particles that it generates.
That 50% of the falling in particles converts a tinny BH into a Supper massive BH over time.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called as the Excretion disc.
Our scientists would know why most of the Hydrogen atoms in the galaxy are located near the SMBH (mainly in those giant gas clouds as G1-G6).
They would know that the new stars that are formed in those gas clouds are drifting outwards.
In this process, they set the shape of the spiral arms.
No need for dark matter for that.
The OM is good enough to support any spiral galaxy.
 
It is true that Stephen Hawking predicted particle creation at the event horizon of a black hole, at the inner edge of an accretion disk.
- But these are not new particles, but the quantum residue of matter that previously fell into the black hole.
Stephen Hawking theory is wrong.
There is no negative mass in the real Einstein Room.
Therefore, this theory should also join the BBT in the way to the garbage.

- And the rate of production at a black hole is far too low to make up for the expansion of the universe (in fact, it is far lower than the infalling radiation from the CMBR, let alone infalling matter from the accretion disk)..
The production rate of new created particles in all the BH that are located in Einstein Universe perfectly fit the steady real universe.
The CMBR is a direct outcome from the galaxies radiation in our Universe.
Based on Hubble law we know that the faster the galaxy moves the farther it is located.
The far away galaxies are moving much faster than the speed of light. Due to relativity, we can still see them while they are residing at redshift 13 which means - 13 times the speed of light.
However, at some ultra high velocity above the speed of light, we can't see them any more.
At that stage we only can get some a faint radiation from those far away galaxies.
Hence, the CMBR is the sum of the radiation from all the galaxies around us.
That CMBR carries a redsfit of 1100. Therefore, we mainly gets the CMBR radiation from a sphere that is relevant to that velocity.
Galaxies which are located further away can't have any more significant impact on the CMBR.
Therefore, even if in one size the length of the universe might be longer than the other side, as there is a limit for the radius of the radiation in the CMBR, we get it at the same amplitude in all directions.
For more information - please read my Thread about Theory D.

Have a look at the mice galaxies: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020506.html
You will see that in this case, the two galaxies are joined by a visible stream of stars, and there is a corresponding stream of stars extending far beyond both galaxies.
- The galaxy at the left has a rather distorted spiral structure (the one of the right is seen edge-on, so we can't see very much of its spiral structure).
- This is what happens when two galaxies pass very close to each other - stars get dragged out of their normal path around the galaxy
Yes, that is the excellent example for a collision between two galaxies.
As you can see the smaller galaxy is losing significant portion of its stars as it comes closer to the main galaxy.


Now compare the Triangulum galaxy: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191231.html

It has a regular spiral shape, with very little distortion.
- The article you quoted indicates that there is a hydrogen bridge (and dark matter bridge) between Triangulum and Andromeda. Both of them are invisible to telescopes.
So, we do not observe any distortion in both galaxies while the Hydrogen Bridge is between the two galaxies.

- This shows that the Andromeda and Triangulum did not approach very closely, as stars have not been torn away from both galaxies
NO!!!
That hydrogen bridge which is located between the galaxies shows their way in the past. So, it proves that those galaxies have moved away from each other. Therefore, as the bridge is connected between the galaxies it clearly proves that they were absolutely close to each other!!!

Hence, in the past they were very close to each other, without any sort of negative distortion on each one of them.
- Even though Triangulum is probably in orbit around Andromeda, it is so far away that it's own gravity is much stronger than the disturbance of Andromeda, leaving the spiral arms undistorted
This is correct only for the current location.
However, in the past they were very close together, therefore it is expected to see a severe distortion.
As we can't see any distortion it proves that Triangulum had emitted from Andromeda while it was quite small and young, as all the other dwarf galaxies around Andromeda and the MW.
Over time it had been increased its mass due to the new particles creation by its SMBH.
- At best, the outer halo of Andromeda and Triangulum overlapped, forming the Hydrogen bridge.
No as Triangulum is relatively smaller galaxy and not so efficient yet. Therefore, some of its new created Hydrogen atomes had been emitted to space and set that Hydrogen Bridge.
So, that Hydrogen Bridge had been created by Triangulum and not by Andromeda.
These couple of pictures from NASA show that Triangulum was not emitted from Andromeda.
Those pictures show the current position of the galaxies.
However, the Hydrogen Bridge is the Ultimate evidence that the two galaxies were nearby in the past.

I would like to highlight that if today those galaxy would come again together, they would set a severe distortion.
The following image is very important:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
It shows that Triangulum is currently located further away from the MW while it still orbits around Andromeda.
However, due to that orbital momentum we know that it is moving faster in our direction.
At some point, it would be disconnected from Andromeda and cross the space by its own.
At that moment its velocity would be the combined velocity vector of Andromeda + the final emitted vector.
Therefore, any galaxy that cross the space had been emitted from it mother galaxy.
That is the base of galaxy over galaxy or rocket over rocket.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2020 19:13:19
Yes, I'm going to stay at Einstein Room as he is fully correct.

No
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes
Chronology of Einstein’s Mistakes
1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity

1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles

1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules

1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light

1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2

1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2

1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks

1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration

1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light

1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity

1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2

1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment

1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity

1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle

1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)

1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity

1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory

1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties

1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)

1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2

1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)

1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2020 19:16:28
Those pictures show the current position of the galaxies.
LOL
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2020 19:17:57
he CMBR is a direct outcome from the galaxies radiation in our Universe.
Why is it completely the wrong "colour"?
The galaxies emit light. The CMBR is microwave.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 26/11/2020 07:16:27
Quote from: Dave Lev
So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
...Therefore, any galaxy that cross the space had been emitted from it mother galaxy.
Astronomy has the concept of the "Roche Limit":
- If a small body is held together by its own gravity
- And strays too close to a more massive body (closer than the Roche limit)
- Then the smaller body's gravity is no longer enough for it to be held together, and the smaller body is torn apart.
- It was originally applied to planets and moons; it could explain how an ice moon like Enceledus could get turned into ice rings around Saturn, for example.
- It can't be applied to human-made artificial satellites, because these are held together by bolts and rivets, which are stronger than the gravity of the space probe,
- But it can be applied to galaxies, which are held together by their gravity

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

If the Triangulum galaxy, as a smaller galaxy was ever within the Roche Limit of Andromeda, then it would have been torn apart, and would not be recognizable as the spiral galaxy that it is today.

This leaves us with a choice of possible explanations. Two of the obvious choices are:
1. If the Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny galaxy, emitted from Andromeda, then it would have started off inside the Roche limit of Andromeda, and would never have made it out.
2. However, if the Triangulum Galaxy had started out as a fully-formed independent galaxy with its own spiral structure, then it could last many billions of years in orbit around Andromda, or taking a complex path through our local cluster. It would retain its shape and content, provided it didn't stray inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.

Just by looking at images of the Triangulum Galaxy, we can see that it has never been inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.
- A Hydrogen thread linking Triangulum and Andromeda suggests that at some point, the outer reaches of the halo around Triangulum entered the Roche Limit of Andromeda galaxy, but the galactic disk never did.
- Clearly the speculation of little galaxies being emitted from big galaxies is flawed, as they would be destroyed by the gravitational field of the larger galaxy before they could escape..
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2020 08:38:52
Astronomy has the concept of the "Roche Limit"
It's important to recognise that this isn't just a concept.
It's the way that physics says that matter will behave.

And, it is also what we observe in reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/11/2020 17:13:21
Just by looking at images of the Triangulum Galaxy, we can see that it has never been inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.
As you represent the current knowledge of our scientists - it shows that they have no clue how spiral galaxy really works.

So, let me start by focusing on G Star density in the Spiral Arm:

http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm
"As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (not including white dwarf stellar remnants) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years or (or 30.7 parsecs) of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years (ly), while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years -- a volume of space that is seven times as large as the inner sphere within 50 ly of Sol. "

Based on this article:
In a sphere of 100 LY there are 512 G stars, while In a sphere of 50 LY there are 64 G stars.
Our scientists ignore this data, as they don't really understand its real meaning.
However, this data is the MOST important data about the spiral arm.

Let's set a simple calculation:
The volume of 100LY is 8 times bigger than the volume of 50 LY.
512 /8 = 64 G star
Therefore
The average density of G star per any 50 Ly in our aria is 64 stars.

Our scientists see that information - but they think that it is just due to random chance.
Sorry - there is no random chance in the spiral arm.
This density is vital to keep the stars in the arm.
So, we are bonded by gravity to Orion arm and that fixed density of stars keeps us in the arm.

Our scientists came with the imagination of "Density wave theory".
They assume that stars could move in and out from the arm.
They are very wrong about it.
In order for a star to stay in the spiral arm it must be located at an aria with a fixed density.
We are lucky that the Sun still hold itself in the Orion Arm due to that G stars density..
Outside the arm there are relatively big arias with zero stars density.
Therefore, any star that will dare to more outwards from the arm would be kicked away from the spiral arm and from the galactic disc at ultra high velocity.
However, between the arms we might find gateways and bridges of star. That is feasible as long as they keep the requested density.
So, we are located at a distance of 28 KLY from the galactic center.
At this location the thickness of the arm is about 1000LY.
As we look inwards - the arm gets thicker. At the Ring the thickness of the arm is about 3000LY
As we look outwards - the arm get thinner. At the most outwards the thickness is only 400LY.
Our scientists can't explain those densities and thickness.
They clearly know that a SMBH with only 4*10^6 Sun mass can't hold by OM gravity a star at a distance of 28KLY and they are fully correct.
However, as they couldn't explain how Newton gravity force of the ordinary matter could work at spiral galaxy - they came with the imagination that is called - Dark matter.
I hope that we all agree that there is no dark matter in our real Universe.
The dark matter is just a simple statement that our scientists really DON'T KNOW how the spiral galaxy works.

So, the fixed density & thickness proves that there is an order in the spiral galaxy. Each star holed itself in the arm by local gravity forces.

This is a key element in the spiral galaxy.
However, this isn't good enough as we also need to explain the fixed orbital velocity of the star at almost any radius - starting at the ring up to the last point of the arm.
To achieve that fixed (or almost fixed) orbital velocity (at about 220Km/s) stars MUST migrate outwards.
Therefore, as the stars migrate outwards they also move backwards. This creates the Unique shape of the spiral arm.
Therefore, the Idea of the density wave is a pure fiction.
Hence, the Dark matter and the density wave should meet each other at the garbage.

So, we have proved that stars must migrate outwards in order to keep a constant orbital velocity and the spiral shape.
However, as all stars are drifting outwards - new stars must be created at the center of the galaxy.
In order to create new stars - new particles and molecular must be created.

So, the fixed density of the G stars and the thickness in spiral arms are a clear indications that new particles are created by the SMBH as Einstein had stated!!!

This leaves us with a choice of possible explanations. Two of the obvious choices are:
1. If the Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny galaxy, emitted from Andromeda, then it would have started off inside the Roche limit of Andromeda, and would never have made it out.
2. However, if the Triangulum Galaxy had started out as a fully-formed independent galaxy with its own spiral structure, then it could last many billions of years in orbit around Andromda, or taking a complex path through our local cluster. It would retain its shape and content, provided it didn't stray inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.
Actually there is a third option
3.  Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny BH. Please be aware that just at the center of the Milky Way our scientists observed more than 10,000 BH. All of those BH must migrate outwards. Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time. So, that Tiny Triangulum' BH which had been born near the Andromeda' SMBH found its way outwards from the galaxy. As it drifts outwards it gains more and more mass. At some point it was holding a dwarf galaxy that was orbiting around it Mother - Andromeda. Over time as it moves further away it gains more mass and now it is a Spiral galaxy boy with about 40 B stars.
His Mother - Andromeda looks at him from 782,000 LY and she is very proud from her baby.



Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2020 17:49:21
. All of those BH must migrate outwards.
Things no not fall upwards.


Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time.
That is impossible due to the conservation laws.
So, that Tiny Triangulum' BH which had been born near the Andromeda' SMBH found its way outwards from the galaxy
No
Things fall down, not up.
As it drifts outwards it gains more and more mass.
That's still a breach of the conservation laws.

Telling the same fairy tale twice does not make it true.

Over time as it moves further away it gains more mass
A third repeat does not help.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 10:04:22
Quote from: Dave Lev on 26/11/2020 17:13:21
. All of those BH must migrate outwards.
Things no not fall upwards.

Well, as there is no dark matter in our real Universe, any star that is located at the spiral arm must hold itself there by gravity.
Therefore, as long as you would believe in that imagination that is called dark matter, you won't understand where is upwards and where is down wards.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 26/11/2020 17:13:21
Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time.
That is impossible due to the conservation laws.

It is impossible that as a scientist you keep rejecting Einstein Theory!!!
Einstein had fully confirmed the Idea of New Particle Creation or in short.
This Theory should be called - ENPC Theory (Einstein New Particle Created)

You don't have to argue with me.
Now you face Mr Einstein.
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!

This Theory is the based for the entire Universe.
It gives perfect answer for any observation in small and in large scale.
From now on I have no intention to argue with you any more about the ENPC theory as this theory is Einstein Theory. .
However, you are more than welcome to offer any sort of observation that based on your understanding should knock down that Einstein Theory.
So, as Einstein ENPC theory explains the entire Universe at very small scale and at very large scale, let's compare it to the BBT

A. Spiral galaxy
In order to explain the spiral galaxy our scientists are using two main imaginations which are called - Dark matter and Density wave.
Let's see how those imaginations could help for the spiral galaxy shape
1. 3KPC Ring - Those two imaginations theories and the BBT can't offer any explanation for this ring in the spiral galaxy.
2. Bar - Same issue. Those two imagination ideas can't explain it
3. Fixed density of G stars at the spiral arms - Those two imaginations also can't explain it
4. Thickness of the Arm (3,000Ly at the Ring and only 400 Ly at the further most location of the arm) - Same answer. Those two imaginations can't explain this observation.
5. SMBH is a picky eater - Those two imaginations and the BBT can't really explain how could it be that the SMBH is so massive while it ejects outwards most of its food.
6. Ultra high Hydrogen concentration near the SMBH - Those two imaginations and the BBT can't explain why most of the free Hydrogen in the whole galaxy is concentrated near the SMBH.
7. Spiral shape - in order to show that the density wave could create the spiral shape our scientists have used a simulation which starts at a very thin and concentrated disc full with stars. That starting point is imagination. In real Universe the galaxy can't start from that point. In any case, it takes several cycles to achieve the image of the spiral. However, as they continue with the simulation, the spiral shape breaks down. So, just for a very short brief of time they have got the spiral shape. Therefore it is clear that the dark matter and the density wave imaginations including the BBT can't offer real explanation to the spiral shape.

Dark matter - Our scientists didn't find any real observation for that imagination. As they have no clue how spiral galaxy works, they just invent an idea of dark matter while for almost each galaxy they need to use a special formula of that imagination.
How long are you going to believe in that fiction?

A third repeat does not help.
A third repeat does not help. Einstein Theory is the Ultimate answer for our Universe as it gives perfect fit to ANY observation.
So again - please feel free to show any contradiction.

In any case, let's close the small scale understanding based on Andromeda and Triangular
The following image represents the Highlight of the new born galaxy activity in our Universe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
We clearly see that Triangulum still orbits around its mother - Andromeda while they are located at 782,000 Ly away from each other.
They are still connected to each other by umbilical cord that we call Hydrogen bridge
That umbilical cord flows Triangulum as it still orbits around Andromeda and drifts away from it.
Therefore, we can claim the following:
Van - Velocity vector of Andromeda as it cross the open space.
Vtr -   Velocity vector of Triangulum
While
Vtr = Van + Vtr-c
Vtr-c = The current orbital velocity vector of Triangulum around Andromeda.
At some point of time Triangulum would be totally disconnect from its Mother and cross the open space with the last orbital momentum that it might get from Andromeda.
At that time we would be able to claim that Triangulum is crossing the space at the following velocity:
Vtr = Van + Vtr-f
Vtr-f = Final drifting velocity of Triangulum from Andromeda.

Therefore
Any galaxy in the Universe is based on its mother velocity + the ejected velocity.

The current distance between Triangulum to Andromeda is 782,000LY.
Let assume that when the distance would be 1 M LY Triangulum would be totally disconnect from the gravity of his mother - Andromeda
That distance is called D-f (Final distance to disconnect from the Mother gravity force)
At that moment we can claim that:
Vtr = Van + Vtr-f.
We know that Van = 700Km/s
Let's assume that Vtr-f = 200Km/s (and it is exactly in the same direction as Van velocity vector)
Hence
Vtr = 700Km + 200Kms = 900 Km/sec

If Vtr-f is in the opposite direction of Van
Then
Vtr = 700 - 200 = 500 Km/s

So, we clearly see that galaxies are moving in space as Rocket Over Rocket.
The direction of the final ejection would set the total final velocity ofa galaxy.

Hence
In the Future, the baby galaxy (let's call it Ba galaxy) of  Triangulum would cross the space at

Vba = Vtr + Vba-f = Van + Vtr-f + Vba-f

Hence, the Velocity of Andromeda would be the base on the entire density of baby galaxies over babies to come.

The final ejection from a baby galaxy from its Mother would set the final velocity vector of a galaxy.
However, we still need to understand how long it took to Triangulum in order to evolve from a tiny BH which had been born near the core of its Mather - Andromeda.
This time is called - Tgl (The time that it takes to form full Spiral galaxy from a tiny BH)
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 10:06:26
Based on that data I would like to answer Halc' question:

Quote
Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
Again, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?

Let's go back in time up to the Infinity.
Let's assume that due to a Big Bang one tiny BH had been created in the empty infinite Universe.
Let's also assume that the velocity vector of that first BH with regards to the space was zero.
Based on Einstein ENPC Theory, that BH would increase its mass over time.
At some point it would become a massive spiral galaxy with large no of baby galaxies around it.
Each one of those new born galaxies would be ejected randomly to different direction.
So, each baby galaxy will be ejected from his mother at a velocity which is Vab-f
In order for him to be mature, the minimal time that is requested is Tgl.
At the time its distance to his mother would be D-f (based on Andromeda Triangulum example that distance is 1Mly)

In order to understand how our universe works in large scale, let's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.
Let's also assume that the final ejection velocity vector is fixed for all the new born galaxies.

So, after the second Generations grandchild Galaxy would move away from his grandmother galaxy (which is considered as the first galaxy) at a velocity which is equal to 2 * Vba-f.
The minimal time that is needed to set that grandchild is equal to 2 * Tgl.
However, the distance from the first galaxy is based on the following formula:
D(distance for the second generation) = Tgl * Vba-f + 2* D-f
The age of the Universe at that time would be = 2* Tgl
So, after n Generations we get a universe with the following feature:
Universe Age = n * Tgl
V(velocity of the n baby with regards to the first galaxy) = n * Vba-f.
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* D-f

As D-f = 1Mly
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* 100Mly
That formula represents the expansion of galaxies in space.

After 10,000 generations -

Age = 10,000 * Tgl
V(velocity of the n baby with regards to the first galaxy) = 10,000 * Vba-f.
If Vba-f = 200Kms/sec than
V = 10,000* 200Km/s = 2BKm/s
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (9,999)Tgl^ (10,000 * Vba-f) + 10,000* 100Mly
D = (9,999)Tgl^ (10,000 * Vba-f) + 10Bly

Now, let's go back to Halc question:
Quote
Again, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?

Well, Hubble law is just estimation.
a galaxy with a redshift of 13 is surly moving away at velocity which is 13 times the speed of light.
However, the correct distance to that galaxy is not clear to us.
It is based on the following formula.
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* D-f
However, that is the distance to the first galaxy.
As all the galaxies in the Universe might be created from that single first BH/galaxy, and all of them are moving randomly to any direction it is very difficult to estimate the real distance to that specific galaxy relative to our location.
So, if is is moving 13 times the speed of light, then 14 By ago it was closer by 13*14BLY with regards to its current location.
However, as we don't know how far it is located today, we can't know how far it was 14 By ago
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 28/11/2020 10:43:30
Quote from: Dave Lev
let's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.
This assumption violates the observation that the Triangulum galaxy is in orbit around the Andromeda galaxy.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2020 11:53:19
Well, as there is no dark matter in our real Universe
If you are going to say that, you have to provide a credible alternative to explain the observations of things like spiral galaxies.
All you have done is post nonsense.
Einstein Theory is the Ultimate answer for our Universe as it gives perfect fit to ANY observation.
So again - please feel free to show any contradiction.
Sure.
If that theory fitted the data, we would be using it.
It doesn't.
So the "observation" you ask for is simply- "The Universe".

The biggest most obvious contradiction is that it breaks the conservation of energy/ mass.

You keep trying to pretend that isn't a problem but it is.
It's mathematically proven to be true.
So you need to show an error in Noether's maths (and you aren't going to do that, because you don't understand it.

You really should stop now.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 18:26:13
Quote from: Dave Lev
let's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.
This assumption violates the observation that the Triangulum galaxy is in orbit around the Andromeda galaxy.
You have missed the following image from Nasa
Please look again at that image. We clearly see the expected circular movment of Triangulum around Andromeda in the time to come. That circular movment represents the orbital momentum of Triangulum around Andromeda.
n any case, let's close the small scale understanding based on Andromeda and Triangular
The following image represents the Highlight of the new born galaxy activity in our Universe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
We clearly see that Triangulum still orbits around its mother - Andromeda while they are located at 782,000 Ly away from each other.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:04:22
Well, as there is no dark matter in our real Universe
If you are going to say that, you have to provide a credible alternative to explain the observations of things like spiral galaxies.
All you have done is post nonsense.
I have already did as follow:

Once they accept the idea of new creation particles - they will know how suppermassive black holes reached their current size without eating any matter for outside.
They would know that new particles pair are created near the event of horizon. Both with positive Mass but with carry negative charged with regards to each other.
They would know how that the supper massive BH eats one particle out of the two and ejects the other one to the accretion disc. Therefore, it is called - picky eater.
So it isn't a picky eater as it is eating 50% from all the new particles that it generates.
That 50% of the falling in particles converts a tinny BH into a Supper massive BH over time.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called as the Excretion disc.
Our scientists would know why most of the Hydrogen atoms in the galaxy are located near the SMBH (mainly in those giant gas clouds as G1-G6).
They would know that the new stars that are formed in those gas clouds are drifting outwards.
In this process, they set the shape of the spiral arms.
No need for dark matter for that.
The OM is good enough to support any spiral galaxy.

So how it really works?
1. New born stars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
The aria near the SMBH is full with gas cloud, new born stars and BH The central bulge is pack with Billions of new born stars and dust. We clearly see the new born star forming activity in the gas cloud G1-G6 near the SMBH.

2. Stars outside the galaxy - for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside. Actually, there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies. All of those stars could be created only in the galaxy.
Hence, over time all the stars which had been created in the Bulge near the SMBH would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
3. Binary star system - Braycenter
Our scientists claim that based on clear observation all the new born stars in the gas clouds (as G1 to G6) share a braycenter with at least one more star. So, it is exected that also our Sun should have a twin star/BH and they orbit around their Braycenter.

4. Rotational Curve
In order to understand how the siral galaxy works, let's understand the data of the Rotational Curve
Let's look at the following diagram:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Decomposition-of-the-rotation-curve-of-the-Milky-Way-into-the-components-bulge-stellar_fig4_45893184
A. Bulge - Up to 1KPC
At that stage each star orbits at different direction and at relatively high velocity. Most of the orbital cycles are elliptical.
We see that at the bar the dispersion in the orbital velocity of the stars is quite minimal. The radius of the Bulge is 1KPC which is equivalent to 3,000Ly
B.  3KPC ring. At this location the orbital velocity is the minimal (about 180Km/s)
The thickness of the ring is 1KPC (which is 3,00LY - similar to the radius of the Bulge)
C. Bar - 1KPC to 3KPC
At this stage the stars gets the flatness of the galactic disc.
As they drift outwards from the Bulge (1KPC) to the ring (3KPC) the thickness stay at a maximal level of 1Kpc.
So, the Bar acts as funnel that delivers the stars from the Bulge to the Ring.
It is also important to highlight that at the ring all the stars orbits in almost perfect circular radius (3KPC) around the center. So, from mainly elliptical orbit around the center all the stars at the ring are orbiting in almost a perfect circular.
The ring itself is full with stars. There are no gaps between the stars in that ring. This is very vital for the functionality of the spiral galaxy.
D. First section of the Spiral arms - 3KPC to about 4.5 KPC
At that section the velocity of the stars starts to increase from the Minimal 180Km/s to the maximal velocity of about 220Km/s. However, please remember that the thickness of the arm is decreasing as we move outwards. At 3K C the thickness is 1KPC (3000LY)
F.  Mid section of the Spiral arms - 4.5KPC to about 9KPC.
The velocity stays almost the same at about 220Km/s. However, we know that at 9KPC (our location) the thickness drops to only 1,000Ly
E. Last section of the arm - 9KPC to about 15KPC
We clearly see a dispersion in the orbital velocity from almost 150 Km/s till 230Km/s
Please be aware that at the end of the spiral arm (12KPC to 15KPC) the thickness could drop to almost 400LY.
F. After the Spiral arms - All the stars that had been ejected from the arms are now moving upwards or downwards relatively to the galactic disc.

Now for the explanation of this observation
The density wave theory can't explain that full observation of velocity and thickness relative to the radius.
Our scientists don't know how the Bar had been formed and what is its main function in the galaxy.

So, how the Einstein ENPC and Newton gravity force are working at spiral galaxy?
The Ring is the main element of the spiral galaxy.
All the stars in that ring sets significant gravity force inwards and outwards.
Therefore, any star that gets to the end of the Bulge (1KPC) stars to feel the impact of the ring Gravity force.
As the stars is moving to the direction of the Ring (in the Bar section), the gravity force of the SMBH is decreasing while the gravity force of the Ring is increasing. Therefore, the orbital velocity of the star is decreasing from almost 230m/s at the edge of the Bulge to about 180Km/s at the Ring.
The Bar acts as a funnel which delivers new stars to the Ring, while each star finds its location in the ring as a falling ball in a Rolette.
Once the star gets to the ring it is gravity bonded to the inwards side of the ring and adds its mass gravity to the ring.
However, at the same time other stars at the outwards side of the ring drifts outwards to the direction of the Spiral arms.
Therefore, the total stars mass in the ring is more or less constant.
That ring holds by gravity all the spiral arms around it.
If the ring will break, the spiral arms would be disconnected from the galaxy.

With regards to the orbital velocity at the spiral arm:

Let's start with the assumption that the arm is rigid.
So, each star stays at the same location/radius at the arm during all his life time.
Let's assume that S1 is located at R1
Hence
P1 = 2π R
If the rigid disc sets one full cycle in T time, then the orbital velocity of S1 is:
V1 = P1/T
For S2 which is located at a radius R2 = 1.1R1, we get:
P2 = 2π R2 = 2π 1.1R1 = 1.1P1
Therefore, the orbital velocity of S2 is:
V2 = P2/T = 1.1V1
So, it is clear that if the orbital velocity of S2 is higher than the velocity of S1 by 1.1.

This represents a Rigid disc.
However, the spiral arm isn't rigid.
The stars in the arm are always drifting outwards.
Therefore, in order to keep the same orbital velocity at any spot in the spiral arms, the distance that a star should cross at any given moment of time should be fixed.
Therefore, for example let assume that:
S1 is located very close to the ring (radius R1) and set full cycle at time T
The distance that it crosses in T is:
P1 = 2π R1
In order for S2 which is located at a radius of R2 = 1.1R1 to move exactly at the same velocity as S1, it must cross the same distance as S1 and at the same time.
Hence,
For V1 to be equal to V2 we must set the following:
P2 = P1 = 2π R1 = 2π R2/1.1.
So, while S1 sets full cycle, S2 sets 1/1.1 = 0.9 cycle
That is the based for the spiral shape.
The stars are drifting outwards in the spiral arm and by doing so, they decrease their orbital velocity (with regards to rigid arm).
As the stars are drifting outwards the density of G stars should go down and the thickness of the arm should be lower.
As the stars get to the end of the arm, the local gravity is too weak to hold them in the arm. Therefore they should be disconnected from the arm and from the galactic disc.

Please be aware that the gravity force outside the arm would be too low to hold the star.
Therefore, if a star would drift outwards the arm it will be ejected from the galaxy as a rocket.
Actually, the sun is located quite close to the edge of the Orion Arm (about 200Ly?).
If we would look carefully, we won't find any star after that edge till the nearby arm. It is a desert over there. I hope that we won't come too close to that edge as we might be kicked out from the arm.

Once we understand that, we actually understand how spiral galaxy really works.


So the "observation" you ask for is simply- "The Universe".
The biggest most obvious contradiction is that it breaks the conservation of energy/ mass.

If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.
In any case this is the last time that I respond to that kind of message as you and all the BBT scientists shouldn't reject Einstein ENPC Theory!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2020 18:42:32
If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.
Well, there are two things there.
The first is that energy/mass conservation is observed.
The other thing is that I'm not relying on observation.
It has been proved mathematically to be true.


Once they accept the idea of new creation particles
I said "credible".
That's not a description you can apply to something which is proven to be wrong.

"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
That's an interesting phenomenon.
You do realise that it shows that the continuous generation idea is wrong, don't you?

Because that idea relies on particles (and thus stars) being generated evenly spread throughout the universe.

There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 18:26:13
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
That's an interesting phenomenon.
You do realise that it shows that the continuous generation idea is wrong, don't you?
Because that idea relies on particles (and thus stars) being generated evenly spread throughout the universe.
There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen?
Why do you think that particles and stars should be generated evenly?
Each galaxy in the Universe would generate the no. of stars that it can generate.
Some might be very productive and some much less.
Therefore we get the following One-year WMAP image of background cosmic radiation (2003).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe#/media/File:Baby_Universe.jpg
We clearly see some "hot spots" and some "cold spots".
With regards to the CMBR.
You have stated that the CMBR is actually a microwave.
Each galaxy in the Universe radiates its unique microwave radiation.
As that radiation can cross longer distances than light, we get that radiation from further away galaxies.
Therefore, we can get this kind of radiation from very far away galaxies that carry a redshift of up to 1100.
The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 18:26:13
If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.
Well, there are two things there.
The first is that energy/mass conservation is observed.
The other thing is that I'm not relying on observation.
It has been proved mathematically to be true.
As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?
Can you please Prove  mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?
We all know that the BBT does not offer any real science solution for that problem.
Some Scientists claim that at the early time the physics of law didn't work and therefore, we could get that energy for free.
Some claim that it isn't our problem to deal with it as the BBT starts after the bang.
Some other claim that God has delivered the requested energy. So, God was responsible to deliver the Energy and the BBT scientists are responsible to show how the Universe works after getting that energy from God.
I don't know which kind of overview do support.
For those people who believe in God I can tell that if God could deliver the energy before the bang, why he can't also deliver the energy after the bang. If God could deliver so much energy in a brief of moment for the BBT Theory, why he can't deliver just few particles for Einstein theory?.
For those people who claim that it is not their problem to deal with the energy issue before the BBT, I would advice to continue with this approach after the BBT.
For those people that claim that the science law didn't work before the Bang I would advice not to use the science law after the bang..

In any case, even if somehow based on the BBT we get that energy free of charge and bypass the energy/mass conservation law, our scientists would still have the following problems:
1. They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.
2. They can't tell us if the energy that had been given to us includes also the energies of dark matter and dark energy.
3. If the darkness energies were already there, how each energy knew the function of its destiny? Why 70% of the energy had been transformed to dark energy, 26% to dark matter and ONLY 4% to OM? What kind of science law split the functionality of the energies just to meet our exaltations for spiral galaxies and acceleration in the expansion.

Sorry, the BBT does not represent any sort of real science.
It is pure imagination as it does not offer any real science law for that flag of energy/mass conservation.

However, Einstein clearly offers a valid science law.
He claims that by using very minor cosmological constant in his formula, new particles could be created.
So, we have real Einstein formula which shows that new particles could be created, while based on the BBT our scientists can't offer a real formula even for one new particle creation.

Therefore, from now on, when you hear the energy/mass conservation law - please grab all the BBT believers and hide under the table or in a shelter.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 11:56:57
I hope that by now we all understand that the BBT is none relevant theory.


In the following article it is stated that:
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1028/Do-Catholics-have-to-believe-in-the-Big-Bang-now
 "In fact, it was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who in 1927 first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory. Later, Pope Pius XII asserted evolution and Catholic doctrine are not contrary, and St. John Paul II backed him."

So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT as it is even stated:
"Pope Francis splashed in controversial waters Monday, saying the Big Bang theory supports evidence of a divine creator."
However, in that article it is stated that after all the pope doesn't support the BBT as:

"The beginning of the world was not chaotic, he continued, but rooted in love. And beliefs in creation and evolution can co-exist".
"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."


I fully support that breakthrough understanding that The beginning of the world was not chaotic and the Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve..

Wow what a great message!!!
No room for chaotic beginning in the Universe as a big Bang but evolution in nature which fully correlated with Einstein theory of new particles in order to show how the Universe had been evolved.

Actually, the BBT contradicts the existence of God.
Based on the BBT, the Universe that we see today would be expended to the infinity in the Future.
The space would come back to the darkness as all the galaxies would move away from each other.
At some point of time we won't see any galaxy in the open space, while most of the stars would die.
So, based on the BBT the whole creation of the Universe would be destroy in the Future.
Anyone who believes in God does understand that this is not an option.

God wouldn't allow the Universe to fall back into darkness as the galaxies are moving away from each other.
Therefore, Einstein theory for New created particles should keep our universe forever and ever.
That theory proves that the Universe is infinity in time and space as in each new created particle there is a finger of God.
Therefore, Einstein ENPC is the ultimate Theory for the evolvement of the Universe and fully correlated to the Pope vision and for anyone that believes in God.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2020 13:32:43
Why do you think that particles and stars should be generated evenly?
I already told you that- and you quoted it.
But you didn't answer the question it raises.
There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen by?

As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?
Can you please Prove  mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?
I already explained that.
The maths allows departures from the law of conservation if, and only if, there is a break in temporal symmetry.
The Start of the Universe is such a break.
If the Universe has an end then that would be another.
But that's it.
Those two events are the only "free passes" you get.

Now, back to the point.
How do you avoid it?
Each galaxy in the Universe radiates its unique microwave radiation.
Yes, So do you and I, so does the Sun and they are all clearly different from the CMBR. They are, obviously all irrelevant.



As that radiation can cross longer distances than light,
No, light and microwaves have the same range. Why do you say things like that?
Don't you realise that the scientists will point out that you are posting nonsense?
Do you enjoy being laughed at?


Therefore, we can get this kind of radiation from very far away galaxies that carry a redshift of up to 1100.
There can't be a "therefore" which is based on a falsehood.

You must be a real joy in the pub "two plus two is five therefore you owe me a drink".

The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.
that's impossible.
The spectrum of microwaves is wrong.
Again; you are ignoring the facts.
We all know that the BBT does not offer any real science solution for that problem

It offers a perfectly good explanation.
The trouble is that you can't understand it.
We are back to the root problem here; You suffer from D K syndrome.


Some Scientists claim that at the early time the physics of law didn't work and therefore, we could get that energy for free.
Some claim that it isn't our problem to deal with it as the BBT starts after the bang.
Some other claim that God has delivered the requested energy. So, God was responsible to deliver the Energy and the BBT scientists are responsible to show how the Universe works after getting that energy from God.
And the scientists who actually understand the conservation law  say- correctly- that it does not apply in the case where time is unsymmetrical.

Why did you ignore the real science?
Or is it just that you can't understand it?

Some other claim that God has ...
A scientist who claims that God might have done something would need to start by proving that there is a God.
That hasn't happened yet.
Do you understand that "Godidit" isn't science?
For those people who believe in God I can tell that if God could deliver the energy before the bang, why he can't also deliver the energy after the bang. If God could deliver so much energy in a brief of moment for the BBT Theory, why he can't deliver just few particles for Einstein theory?.
For those people who claim that it is not their problem to deal with the energy issue before the BBT, I would advice to continue with this approach after the BBT.
For those people that claim that the science law didn't work before the Bang I would advice not to use the science law after the bang..
Again, you have missed out the actual scientists.
We know that the conservation law depends on a symmetry and that symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang.
It's the same law saying the same thing.
If you have symmetry you have conservation.
If you don't have symmetry you don't have conservation.

Do you not see that?
It's not helpful when  you ignore the actual scientific explanation; why do you do it?



They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.
Nor do you; but at least science knows that it doesn't know.
You on the other hand, are pretending that you know what happens outside the observable universe.

The grown ups know that you must be making that up because... it isn't observable.


They can't tell us if the energy that had been given to us includes also the energies of dark matter and dark energy.
We can; it has. That's what the observations show us.



What kind of science law split the functionality of the energies just to meet our exaltations for spiral galaxies and acceleration in the expansion.
One which makes deductions from observations, rather than making up impossible tosh.

However, Einstein clearly offers a valid science law.
He claims that by using very minor cosmological constant in his formula, new particles could be created.
Close, but you have it the wrong way round.
He said that if we had spontaneous generation of particles then we could add a constant to the formula.

However, we know that the generation of new particles is impossible.
So we know he was wrong.

Therefore, from now on, when you hear the energy/mass conservation law - please grab all the BBT believers and hide under the table or in a shelter.

Are you familiar with the works of Douglas Adams- a comic writer?
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/The_Outside_of_the_Asylum

You think you are Wonko the sane.

I hope that by now we all understand that the BBT is none relevant theory.
I hope that you learn the difference between "none" and "non".
I also hope that you learn some science one day.

So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT
Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.


I fully support that breakthrough understanding that The beginning of the world was not chaotic
The scientists, on the other hand support belief in evidence.

Actually, the BBT contradicts the existence of God.
Not really, but it hardly matters.
If it did, then I rather suspect we would have heard before now.
And also we would be hearing it from someone who actually understands the BBT.
You don't.

Anyone who believes in God does understand that this is not an option.
That's their problem; not science's.
It's no different in principle from all the other suffering.

Anyway, before you can use "God" as a basis for any argument, you have to prove that He exists.
Good luck with that.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.
Nor do you; but at least science knows that it doesn't know.
You on the other hand, are pretending that you know what happens outside the observable universe.

The grown ups know that you must be making that up because... it isn't observable.
How those grownups "scientists" could offer a theory for a Universe without knowing its size???
That by itself proves that they aren't grownups yet and their theory is useless.
Actually, we all know why those grownups avoid that key question.
The BBT is a theory for a fairly compact Universe.
Just few years ago those grownups were very sure that its maximal size is 92BY. They even called it "Observable" just to confuse us.
Now our scientists clearly know that it must be bigger than that. In one article it was stated 256BY, in other 1Trillion Year and even infinity.
I hope that those grownups know that the BBT can't fit for infinity Universe.
Actually, it can't fit even for the 92Bly universe..
So, again as they clearly don't know - please don't claim that they know. Without clear message about the size of the Universe any theory is just nonsense!!!
Based on Einstein ENPC, the universe must be INFINITE.
We can discuss if it meets the observation or not, but you have a clear size.
However, as the BBT doesn't offer any real size - we shouldn't even consider it as a theory.
Please - as long as those grownups refuse to offer a size for our Universe - any size, that theory should be set on hold at the garbage site.
Hence, any real scientist in the whole planet shouldn't even consider the BBT as an alternative theory - while it can't offer a size for the Universe.
From this moment - lets agree that a theory for a Universe without size is a useless Theory!

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?
Can you please prove mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?
I already explained that.
The maths allows departures from the law of conservation if, and only if, there is a break in temporal symmetry.
The Start of the Universe is such a break.
If the Universe has an end then that would be another.
But that's it.
Those two events are the only "free passes" you get.
Sorry - that is a pure Nonsense.
So you actually confirm that in order to get the energy for the BBT, you must "departure from the law of conservation"!
Hence, based on the law of conservation you fully confirm that no energy could be supply for the BBT.
However, you give the BBT a waiver from that law by some imagination that is called "symmetry":

We know that the conservation law depends on a symmetry and that symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang.
It's the same law saying the same thing.
If you have symmetry you have conservation.
If you don't have symmetry you don't have conservation.

Hence, based on your Knowledge the "symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang".
How do you dare to claim that kind of message?
How do you know that the "symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang" while we don't know if there was a big bang 14 BY ago?
Had you been there? Do we have a record for that Asymmetry?
Sorry - this is one more  wrong message from scientist which have no clue how our Universe really works.

In any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.

Please remember that Einstein told us that
M= Ec^2
Hence, for one unite of mass, you need to multiply the energy by c^2.
So, in order to qualify your unrealistic BBT theory you mission is to estimate the total mass in the entire Universe
Let's assume that the size of our Universe is just 92BLY (just in order to make it easy for you).
Try to find how many galaxies there are in this sphere. Please don't forget that for any star in a galaxy, there must be at least one outside.
Please advice the total Ordinary matter in that universe size and multiply it by c^2.
We also know that 99.99..9 of the new created particles after the bang had been eliminated each other.
So, that total mass represents only the 0.000..1 from the energy that was needed for the BBT.
Therefore, the energy that was needed for the BBT in order to set the ordinary matter is:

E = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1)

Add to that imaginary energy, the Dark Matter and the dark energy

E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy

Now find the Math that would confirm the Asymmetry delivery of such energy free of charge.

However, don't forget that even if you would prove by Math that this energy is achievable, you can convert it to real particle without Electromagnetic transformation.
As in the Early Universe which is based on Asymmetry there were no transformation tools - you won't be able to set even one particle with that energy.

If this is not good enough for you, let's discuss on the expansion/inflation of the space.
Please be aware that the space is fixed.
There is no way to expand the space even by one Pico millimeter. Not in small scale and not in large scale..
We also know that nothing could move faster than the speed of light.
However, in order to believe in the BBT based on the inflation theory the Universe was expanding at 50 billion times the speed of light.
Please show the math that confirms that imagination.
Hence - it's time to stop the whole BBT imagination. Why don't you set it in the garbage???



Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
As that radiation can cross longer distances than light,
No, light and microwaves have the same range. Why do you say things like that?
There is a difference between visible Light to Microwave in the frequencies and in the photon energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
So, although Microwaves travel by line-of-sight at the speed of light it has different characteristics from visable light.
Based on those different characteristics we can measure the microwave energy from very far away galaxies.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.
that's impossible.
The spectrum of microwaves is wrong.
Again; you are ignoring the facts.
Sorry, there is no error in the microwave spectrum.
A redshift of 1100 indicates that the radiation arrives from a very far away location.
So you are ignoring the facts.


Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/12/2020 11:23:13
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:56:57
So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT
Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.
How do you dare to insulate the Pope Francis and the Catholic Church Customs?
His wisdom is much superior than yours.
There might be millions or even billions of people that might also be insulted from your message.
Please - you have to apologize.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 11:29:38
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:56:57
So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT
Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.
How do you dare to insulate the Pope Francis and the Catholic Church Customs?
His wisdom is much superior than yours.
There might be millions or even billions of people that might also be insulted from your message.
Please - you have to apologize.

You forgot to answer the question.
Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.

There's no reason why I should apologise for asking a question and making a statement.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 11:45:02
Sorry, there is no error in the microwave spectrum.
A redshift of 1100 indicates that the radiation arrives from a very far away location.
So you are ignoring the facts.
If the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.
It would not be the same in all directions.
But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.


How do you dare to claim that kind of message?
No "daring" is required.
It's obvious.
If the universe had a "start" then time after that start is not the same as "time before that start" (which does not exist).
That breaks the symmetry and permits a breach of the law of conservation.
Since nothing else permits such a breach, we know there must have been a start,.

There is a difference between visible Light to Microwave in the frequencies and in the photon energy.
Yes, and you should understand that I already know that so you should realise that you don't need to post that.
And you should realise that , since I know that, you pointing it out can not change my view on the issue.
So why did you waste your time typing it?
Are you not clever enough to follow simple deductive logic?
Incidentally,  light and microwaves have the same range.
You are wrong to say otherwise.
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.
Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

there were no transformation tools
None is needed.
We also know that nothing could move faster than the speed of light.
In which case Olber's paradox proves that the universe is finite in extent or age.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/12/2020 21:25:26
Size of the Universe -
Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.
As the BBT can't specify the real size if the Universe, then this theory is Nonsense.
If you can't tell us what the size of the Universe is - we can't verify if the BBT is correct or incorrect.
Therefore, this BBT theory is useless and we just wasting our time on irrelevant theory.

In any case, let me prove why the BBT is not relevant also based on the following aspects:

CMBR
If the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.
It would not be the same in all directions.
Our scientists have already confirmed that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous in long scale.
Therefore, we actually get almost the same CMBR radiation from all directions.
However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.

Distance - Based on the BBT if we look all the way to the left, we might see a galaxy (let's call it Galaxy A) at a maximal distance of about 13.4 BLY. The same issue when we look at the left and we see a galaxy B. So, we might consider that the distance between the one in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
They tell us that it is due to curvature in the Universe.
So, if that is correct, then this curvature sets the maximal size of the Universe.
Therefore, our scientists should tell us what is the maximal size of the Universe.
At some point of time they have estimated that in order to keep A next to B, the maximal the size of the Universe should be 92BLY (Radius of 46 BLY).
Surprisingly, now they do understand that the Universe must be much bigger than that.
This sets a sever contradiction to the BBT.
If the Universe is 1Trillion LY, 256BLY or even infinite, the idea that A is located next to B is incorrect.
So, our scientists bypass this issue.
Therefore please answer the following:
1. Do you confirm that 13.4BY ago Galaxy A was next to galaxy B.
2. So what is the maximal Universe size that could support this imagination? As our scientists claim that the size of the Universe could be much bigger than those 96BLY, please explain how can you set A Next to B while the Universe size is 256BLY or even 1 Trillion LY.
3. What is the real meaning of curvature in the Universe space?
You have stated that the Curvature in space is similar to a curvature in the planet surface. However, in the planet we can specify the radius as the curvature of a 3rd dimension for the 2D surface.
So, please specify the size of the 4th dimension of the Universe space in order to set that kind of curvature.
4. As the Curvature set a finite Universe, what there is outside that Universe space? As you claim that the expansion is in the space itself, than 13.8 years ago there was no space in the whole Universe. So please how could it be that 13.8 BY ago there was a Universe without any space?
5. Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?
The Redshift can't give any idea about the amplitude of the CMBR energy. Therefore, it was a sever mistake to multiply the current CMBR level by the redshift in order to estimate the CMBR altitude in the past..

But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.
Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.
We had long discussion on that.
You and all the BBT scientists reject the simple understanding that the CMBR and its BBR is the radiation from our current real Universe.
With regards to the BBT imagination - 13.4 By ago there was a radiation that carry BBR. That radiation took place at the recombination Era which took with duration of only 60M years.
However, based on your imagination that radiation should stay with us forever and ever.
So, how could it be that it could stay in the Universe for so long time?
Based on your explanation it is there as the universe expands at the speed of light.
However, we already know that this is incorrect as the Universe should be much bigger than the maximal speed of light expansion.
6. So, do you confirm that as the Universe is bigger than this 92BLY the BBT can't give real answer for the BBR?
7. Math calculation for the BBT
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.
Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Sorry.
We have already discussed this issue.
It is stated: "Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law."
So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.
You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.
Total energy:
E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy
However, as you don't know the size of the Universe, you also don't know the total requested energy.
Therefore this theory can't be used as a math's prove for the BBT.
8. Electromagnetic transformation
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
there were no transformation tools
None is needed.
So how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?

9. Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2020 22:37:34
Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.
The grown-ups and I are talking about exactly the same meaning that this is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

What are you pretending that it means?

Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.
Since we can only know about the bits that we can see, any so called "theory" which says it knows about the stuff we can't, even in principle, ever hope to see is not falsifiable and is not science.


However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.
The scale is wrong.
The hot and cold patches are far too big.

Do you understand that black body radiation has a well defined, unique spectrum for a given temperature?

It is impossible for some random bunch of galaxies or stars or whatever to produce a spectrum which is as exacta match to BBR as the CMBR is.
Do you understand that?


However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
You would need to show where scientists say that.

Size of the Universe -
Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.
As the BBT can't specify the real size if the Universe, then this theory is Nonsense.
If you can't tell us what the size of the Universe is - we can't verify if the BBT is correct or incorrect.
Therefore, this BBT theory is useless and we just wasting our time on irrelevant theory.

In any case, let me prove why the BBT is not relevant also based on the following aspects:

CMBR
If the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.
It would not be the same in all directions.
Our scientists have already confirmed that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous in long scale.
Therefore, we actually get almost the same CMBR radiation from all directions.
However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.

Distance - Based on the BBT if we look all the way to the left, we might see a galaxy (let's call it Galaxy A) at a maximal distance of about 13.4 BLY. The same issue when we look at the left and we see a galaxy B. So, we might consider that the distance between the one in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
They tell us that it is due to curvature in the Universe.
So, if that is correct, then this curvature sets the maximal size of the Universe.
Therefore, our scientists should tell us what is the maximal size of the Universe.
At some point of time they have estimated that in order to keep A next to B, the maximal the size of the Universe should be 92BLY (Radius of 46 BLY).
Surprisingly, now they do understand that the Universe must be much bigger than that.
This sets a sever contradiction to the BBT.
If the Universe is 1Trillion LY, 256BLY or even infinite, the idea that A is located next to B is incorrect.
So, our scientists bypass this issue.
Therefore please answer the following:
1. Do you confirm that 13.4BY ago Galaxy A was next to galaxy B.
2. So what is the maximal Universe size that could support this imagination? As our scientists claim that the size of the Universe could be much bigger than those 96BLY, please explain how can you set A Next to B while the Universe size is 256BLY or even 1 Trillion LY.
3. What is the real meaning of curvature in the Universe space?
You have stated that the Curvature in space is similar to a curvature in the planet surface. However, in the planet we can specify the radius as the curvature of a 3rd dimension for the 2D surface.
So, please specify the size of the 4th dimension of the Universe space in order to set that kind of curvature.
4. As the Curvature set a finite Universe, what there is outside that Universe space? As you claim that the expansion is in the space itself, than 13.8 years ago there was no space in the whole Universe. So please how could it be that 13.8 BY ago there was a Universe without any space?
5. Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?
The Redshift can't give any idea about the amplitude of the CMBR energy. Therefore, it was a sever mistake to multiply the current CMBR level by the redshift in order to estimate the CMBR altitude in the past..

But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.
Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.
We had long discussion on that.
You and all the BBT scientists reject the simple understanding that the CMBR and its BBR is the radiation from our current real Universe.
With regards to the BBT imagination - 13.4 By ago there was a radiation that carry BBR. That radiation took place at the recombination Era which took with duration of only 60M years.
However, based on your imagination that radiation should stay with us forever and ever.
So, how could it be that it could stay in the Universe for so long time?
Based on your explanation it is there as the universe expands at the speed of light.
However, we already know that this is incorrect as the Universe should be much bigger than the maximal speed of light expansion.
6. So, do you confirm that as the Universe is bigger than this 92BLY the BBT can't give real answer for the BBR?
7. Math calculation for the BBT
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.
Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Sorry.
We have already discussed this issue.
It is stated: "Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law."
So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.
You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.
Total energy:
E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy
However, as you don't know the size of the Universe, you also don't know the total requested energy.
Therefore this theory can't be used as a math's prove for the BBT.
8. Electromagnetic transformation
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
there were no transformation tools
None is needed.
So how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?

9. Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?

How long is a piece of string?
Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?
No, as we have said before it's also about the expansion of space.
That's how you can get red shifts corresponding to velocities greater than C.

Try to pay attention when we tell you things.


You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.
Total energy:
No, I don't but... what you are asking me to do is prove that the universe is here.
Well, have a look around you.
It is achievable- because it was achieved.

It does not break the laws of physics.
Your idea does.

So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.
That phrase has no meaning.
Would you like to try again?

So how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?
Quantum variations in the EM field.
Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?
Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.

The interesting question is why don't you believe facts?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 07/12/2020 23:16:06
Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?
Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.
Reference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc.  The latter is not in units of velocity at all.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2020 08:34:07
Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?
Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.
Reference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc.  The latter is not in units of velocity at all.
He's talking about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 08/12/2020 15:16:44
He's talking about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
There's no mention at all on that page of 'speed of light', velocity, or 50 billion anything.
Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different things in different units, whether you're talking about inflation or today's expansion.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2020 20:48:05
Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different things
He's unlikely to be right about either.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2020 20:52:54
Also : Doh!
posted wrong link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#/media/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg
History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big Bang
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 09/12/2020 00:36:26
History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big Bang
Wikipedia no less posts a statement that unqualified. Calling inflation faster than light is like calling 200 watts faster than 6 meters. Congrats on finding a pop source making the mistake I'm pointing out.

The inflation epoch increased the size of what makes up today's visible universe from <not much> to about the size of a marble in a small fraction of a second.  The radius of the marble (not of the universe) thus increased from negligible to say a cm in far less time that it takes light to travel that cm, so the surface of that expanding sphere was (and still very much is) increasing its separation from the arbitrary center point at a speed faster than light.  That's not an expansion rate, but a recession rate of a specific location relative to us. That recession rate is indeed a speed. The expansion rate, now or during inflation, is not a speed since it isn't something expressed in distance/time.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2020 08:45:16
The radius of the marble
... is what we were talking about.
Thanks for the clarification.
The point is that  Dave thinks it's so impossible that we should throw out the BB theory, whereas science says it's supported by evidence.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 09/12/2020 09:11:57
Quote
the distance between the [galaxy] in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
I am not aware of any cases where galaxies in opposite directions have been identified as being adjacent to each other.

I think you have been misled by the simple analogy that is often used to describe a finite but unbounded universe:
1. Imagine a 2D universe on the surface of a balloon, with galaxies as little dots
2. No matter how far you travel, you do not hit a boundary.
3. Hypothetically, you could look to the left and see a galaxy, and look to the right and see an adjacent galaxy (or even the same galaxy)
4. If you blow into the balloon, galaxies that are twice as far away move away at twice the speed.
- It's a useful analogy in a number of respects.
- But as far as I know, no-one has actually done (3). (Einstein crosses and arcs don't count, as they lie in the same direction...)

This analogy also has some limitations, for example:
- If the circumference of the balloon is infinite, it becomes harder to get your head around it. But the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.
- If the circumference of the balloon is growing faster than c, you are likely to become rather puffed. But the real universe may be expanding faster than c (and cosmologists suggests that it is).  Again, in this case you can't see around the entire universe - you can only see the part of it that is expanding at less than c.

Analogies are often useful - but don't confuse them with reality.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/12/2020 05:07:10
Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?
Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.
Reference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc.  The latter is not in units of velocity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."
He's talking about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
There's no mention at all on that page of 'speed of light', velocity, or 50 billion anything.
Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different things in different units, whether you're talking about inflation or today's expansion.
So, you don't like the "Velocity". However what about "billion times the speed of light"?
Based on relativity nothing could move faster than the speed of light (in the same space time).
So, how can we agree with this imagination?

Your answer is as follow:
Wikipedia no less posts a statement that unqualified. Calling inflation faster than light is like calling 200 watts faster than 6 meters. Congrats on finding a pop source making the mistake I'm pointing out.

The inflation epoch increased the size of what makes up today's visible universe from <not much> to about the size of a marble in a small fraction of a second.  The radius of the marble (not of the universe) thus increased from negligible to say a cm in far less time that it takes light to travel that cm, so the surface of that expanding sphere was (and still very much is) increasing its separation from the arbitrary center point at a speed faster than light.  That's not an expansion rate, but a recession rate of a specific location relative to us. That recession rate is indeed a speed. The expansion rate, now or during inflation, is not a speed since it isn't something expressed in distance/time.

However, in the article they clearly discuss on size in a limited time. Let's read the this section in the article:

"The microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson appeared extremely uniform, with almost no variance. This seemed very paradoxical because when the radiation was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years. There was no time for one end of the cosmos to communicate with the other end, because energy cannot move faster than the speed of light. The paradox was resolved, as Guth soon realized, by the inflation theory. Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed, an amount so small that all parts would have been in touch[vague] with each other. The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken.The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."

So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"
Yes or No?

If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?

Don't you agree that the meaning of size per time is speed?
Hence, the inflation is all about an accelerated expansion speed of the Universe.
However, the most important message is the following:
"The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."

Now it is very clear why in order to get  a UNIFORM universe in that size at that time frame - those Billion times the speed of light was needed.


However, please advice what kind of force/energy could set an inflation of such ultra high speed?
On the other hand we all know that there is a momentum in the Universe.
Hence, if some unrealistic force/energy could speed up the expansion by billion times the speed of light, what kind of force/energy could stop it once it get to the requested size?

Please answer all the above questions.

It seems to me that the idea of the inflation by itself should kill the BBT.
Could it be that Alan Guth wanted to prove that without an inflation of billion times the speed of light the BBT is useless?
In any case, do you agree that without that unrealistic inflation process the BBT is useless?

If you still believe in that inflation, Please show the source of the energy for that inflation process.

Actually we need to add those Inflation forces/energies to the following BBT energy formula:

E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy

So, please explain how the Universe could get all of that energy out of nothing?

Based on BC answer it is all about Noether theorem:
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.
Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
"Noether’s theorem shows that the puck’s conservation of momentum is tied to its “symmetry of space translation,"
So, Based on Noether’s theorem space is vitel.
However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?

If there was a space before the bang than by definition there must be an empty space outside our observable universe with no matter.

That idea also kills the BBT.

Quote
Quote
the distance between the [galaxy] in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
I am not aware of any cases where galaxies in opposite directions have been identified as being adjacent to each other.
Why not?
Look to the left - Do you see a galaxy (A) at a distance of 13 .4 BLY from us?
Look to the right - Do you see a galaxy (B) at a distance of 13 .4 BLY from us?
So, what is the distance between those two galaxies?

I think you have been misled by the simple analogy that is often used to describe a finite but unbounded universe:
1. Imagine a 2D universe on the surface of a balloon, with galaxies as little dots
2. No matter how far you travel, you do not hit a boundary.
Sorry - This is not realistic.
You band the physics in order to support the BBT.
Do you confirm that based on the BBT, when the Universe age was 300,000 y, the total size of the Universe was only 90,000 MY?
Yes Or NO?
Do you also confirm that from that date - the expansion rate was quite fixed and limited?
Hence, do you confirm that based on the BBT the current Universe size must be FINITE.
Actually, why can't we calculate the maximal size of the Universe which the BBT can set in 13.8 BY?
If that Universe is too small for our real universe, why don't we set the BBT in the garbage?
- If the circumference of the balloon is infinite, it becomes harder to get your head around it. But the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.

Sorry - There is no way for the BBT to set an infinit universe in only 13.8 BY.
If the Universe is infinite (or bigger than 92BLY) the BBT is useless.

In any case, I have proved that based on Noether theorem without space there is no energy for the BBT.
Hence, if you claim that before the BBT there was no space in the Universe - then you won't get any sort of energy. In this case, in order to deliver energy to the BBT you MUST break the law of energy conservation.
Actually, if there was a space in the Universe before the bang, than why that space can't be infinite?
If we start the BBT while the space of the Universe is infinite - then your assumption about a finite balloon shape universe is not realistic as there is no curvature in our real space/universe.
So, the space is ALWAYS 3D and ONLY 3D before or after any imagination of that Bang or the other.

Conclusion:
You can tell any kind of story about the BBT.
That is perfectly OK.
But if there is a contradiction in that story, then you have to set the whole story in the garbage.
Please set the BBT in the garbage - the sooner is better!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2020 09:06:38
However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?
Finally, you nearly understand it.
Because the big bang is a unique event  with space (and time) after it, but not before, it is not symmetrical and the conservation law does not apply.

That's why the sudden existence of mass at the start of the universe is mathematically permitted.

You kept on asking how all that mass and energy didn't break the conservation laws.
It now seems that you understand it.

That's great progress.

Now here is the next idea you need to grasp.
Time and space do exist today.
So the conservation laws do apply today.
So your idea of spontaneous generation is impossible today.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2020 09:13:59
If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?
For the millionth time...
It isn't something moving through space which has exceeded the speed of light.
Space itself expanded and carried things with it.

Have you forgotten? We explained this.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg603517#msg603517
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 11/12/2020 00:05:42
Quote
Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc.  The latter is not in units of velocity at all.
[wiki :: Alan_Guth]
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."
That comment is taken out of context. It is referring to the rate of increase in size of what today comprises the visible universe, which it says if you had included full context.

An object currently 10 exaparsecs away is increasing its proper distance from us at a pace greater than a billion times the speed of light, so does that mean that the universe is expanding faster now than back during inflation?  No, because expansion rate is not measured in distance/time, but the rate of change of a specific dimension is, and that is what the quote above refers to.

The wiki entry is massively simplified and the logic as presented is fallacious since even with normal expansion rates, all the material would have been ‘in touch’ at time zero.  The inflation model solves problems that seem to be beyond the ability of the wiki author to describe to what is probably a pop-science audience.

Quote
Based on relativity nothing could move faster than the speed of light (in the same space time)
Nothing can move faster than light relative to a flat Minkowski coordinate system, which doesn’t describe the universe at large scales. All these rates of change of proper size are expressed in a completely different coordinate system than the one used in SR.

Quote
However, in the article they clearly discuss on size in a limited time.
Size of what? Not the universe. That’s never stated to be any finite thing.

Quote
So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"
Sounds plausible, except the figure should be 380,000 years. Maybe it wasn’t known to more than one digit back then.

Quote
If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?
Wrong coordinate system. This is entirely consistent with general relativity, which forbids only peculiar motion greater than light speed. You've identified nothing that does that.

Quote
Don't you agree that the meaning of size per time is speed?
Speed is distance per time. The space between opposite boundaries of an object at different times can be expressed as a distance, yes. The expansion rate of the universe cannot be expressed this way as it has no size.

I can trivially make the size of something (say the length of a shadow of a triangle on a string) increase at far greater than light speed (in flat spacetime) without anything actually moving at > light speed. So size of something over time is not limited to c.

Quote
Hence, the inflation is all about an accelerated expansion speed of the Universe.
Nobody said accelerating.  OK, it is accelerating now, but the inflation they’re talking about was much greater than the inflation rate now, so it seems a mistake to characterize it as acceleration.

Quote
Now it is very clear why in order to get  a UNIFORM universe in that size at that time frame - those Billion times the speed of light was needed.
It only got to the size of a marble during the inflation epoch. 90 million light years is radius 45 million, which (using the 300,000 year figure) is about 150x light speed. So not sure how a billion was ‘very clear’ to you, other than somebody flippantly using the word to mean ‘a lot’.  Yes, the visible universe grew to the size of a marble (sources differ on this a bit) at some speed considerable greater than 150c, but that ended after about 250 picoseconds (sources differ on this a bit as well), which is hardly a third of a million years.

Quote
On the other hand we all know that there is a momentum in the Universe.
Is there now? What is it? Which way does it go?

Quote
Hence, if some unrealistic force/energy could speed up the expansion by billion times the speed of light, what kind of force/energy could stop it once it get to the requested size?
You’re trying to leverage Newtonian concepts in an epoch where they’re entirely inapplicable.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/12/2020 16:37:29
1. Inflation -
Quote
[wiki :: Alan_Guth]
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."
That comment is taken out of context. It is referring to the rate of increase in size of what today comprises the visible universe, which it says if you had included full context.

An object currently 10 exaparsecs away is increasing its proper distance from us at a pace greater than a billion times the speed of light, so does that mean that the universe is expanding faster now than back during inflation?  No, because expansion rate is not measured in distance/time, but the rate of change of a specific dimension is, and that is what the quote above refers to.

The wiki entry is massively simplified and the logic as presented is fallacious since even with normal expansion rates, all the material would have been ‘in touch’ at time zero.  The inflation model solves problems that seem to be beyond the ability of the wiki author to describe to what is probably a pop-science audience.
There is no error in Wiki.
Alan Guth is a very cleaver scientist.
There must be a reason why he had stated that the inflation speed is billion times the speed of light.
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".
You have stated that some time after the bang the whole matter in the Universe was concentrated in a size of a marble.

the visible universe grew to the size of a marble (sources differ on this a bit) at some speed considerable greater than 150c, but that ended after about 250 picoseconds (sources differ on this a bit as well), which is hardly a third of a million years.

Hence, just after the Bnag the maximal size of the Universe might be even less than a planck.
Just think about a planck size full with the matter of the entire Universe.
Don't you agree that this kind of size represents a Super Giant SMBH?
So, without the inflation, the BBT would end after the Big bang with a Big SMBH.
No more and no less.
Alan Guth did understand it.
I assume that he tried to estimate what is the requested escape velocity that is needed to overcome the Ultra high gravity force in that Marble.
Therefore, he offred the Inflation process with escape velocity of billion times the speed of light.

However, when Alan Guth offered his idea about the Inflation, our scientists assume that the Universe size is very compact.
So, it is clear that at that time he estimated that the maximal matter is quite limited.
Now we all understand the our real Universe is much bigger than the expectations at that time.
Don't also forget that he actually focused only on ordinary matter, as at that time no one had considered the dark matter or dark energy.
So, if Alen Guth would try to find the real escape velocity that was needed for the entire OM of the Universe that is concentrated in a planck size, he might find that even a trillion times the speed of light isn't good enough.
There is also a possibility that our universe is infinite:
but the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.
In this case, even an inflation with trillion over trillion over... trillion speed of light is not good enough.

However, once you set the inflation - there is no way to stop it.
Hence, due to the inflation of billion times (or trillion times the speed of light) all the matter would move away from each other at that ultra high speed.
Therefore, two second after the bang all the matter in the universe would go to the infinity.
Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up with as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real Universe

2. BBT Energy conservation
You also didn't answer my question about the source of energy for the BBT.
As based on the BBT, there was no space in the Universe before the bang, then Noether’s theorem can't work and can't help the BBT to get any bit of energy:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
"Noether’s theorem shows that the puck’s conservation of momentum is tied to its “symmetry of space translation,"
So, Based on Noether’s theorem space is vital.
However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?


There are other key issues that should kill the BBT.
How as a scientist you can hold a theory which doesn't give a perfect fit for our Universe?
Just to claim that this is the best that we have is a severe mistake as you do not open your mind to other real theory.
So, please - why don't you give up and set this irrelevant BBT theory in the garbage and then open yourself to think on real theory for our Universe?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2020 17:27:05
Noether’s theorem can't work and can't help the BBT to get any bit of energy:
Nobody said it would.
However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible.
The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.
So there must have been a start.

Where the energy came from is a question to which I don't know if we will ever know the answer.
I gather the best available idea is this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

The point remains that Noether's theorem, while it does not say where the big bang came from, does say that your idea is mathematically impossible.

I think that it is due to "escape velocity".
It's the universe.
What the **** can it "escape" from?
How as a scientist you can hold a theory which doesn't give a perfect fit for our Universe?
LOL
You keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.

I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.
But yours is not so much"not a perfect fit" as " direct contradictions of facts".
There are other key issues that should kill the BBT.
Like what?
All you have shown so far is that you don't understand it.
You haven't shown any actual problem in it.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 05:07:38
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:37:29
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".
It's the universe.
What the **** can it "escape" from?
Escape velocity - Ve
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]

Ve = √ 2GM/r
"Where G is the universal gravitational constant (G ≈ 6.67×10−11 m3•kg−1•s−2), M the mass of the body to be escaped from, and r the distance from the center of mass of the body to the object"

Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
"In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time. It is also the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with Planck mass. It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m"

Hence
r = 1.616255(18)×10−35 m

If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infinite
M= ∞

Therefore, the requested escape velocity after the Big Bang from that Planck size is also infinite

Ve = √ 2GM/r =  √ 2G∞/1.616255(18)×10−35 m = ∞

Hence, the requested escape velocity from that planck size after the Big bang is infinite.

Therefore:

Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real Universe

You keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.

Who really ignores the escape velocity law of physics?

Like what?
No need.
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.

I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.
How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?

The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.
So there must have been a start.
That is correct.
However, it is clearly not due to the BBT fatal model
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2020 06:08:28
You have stated that some time after the bang the whole matter in the Universe was concentrated in a size of a marble.
I said no such thing. Neither did Guth.

Quote
Hence, just after the Bnag the maximal size of the Universe might be even less than a planck.
That would mean it has a finite size. Nobody said anything about it necessarily having a finite size.

Quote
Don't you agree that this kind of size represents a Super Giant SMBH?
You’re picturing the naive view of a bang happening at a location in space. That’s never been the model.  The bang happened everywhere, not in one place. So no black hole, which is somewhere and not elsewhere. The escape velocity is from it to 'elsewhere'.

Escape velocity - Ve
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]
See what I mean? You’re picturing the universe as an object in space, with stuff trying to escape from it. BC is correct. There is no direction to go to escape the stuff since the bang happens uniformly everywhere. There’s no escaping from ‘everywhere’.

Quote
Ve = √ 2GM/r
This is the Newtonian approximation and only works for small masses like the sun and such. Again you attempt to use Newtonian physics in an epoch where they’re entirely inapplicable.

Quote
Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)
Wrong. The theory says no such thing, since this is assigning a size to something whose size is not bounded by any known measurement. This is all strawman arguments.

Quote
If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infinite
It it is infinite, there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite, so your logic falls apart. The size of the universe was always infinite, however much compressed in the beginning.

You’ll ignore my comments again as you have all others, as evidenced by your continued attempt at inappropriate application of Newtonian physics.
I edited out quite a few questions since they’ve been already answered by me. You obviously are not actually seeking answers.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 07:45:59
The bang happened everywhere, not in one place.
Can you please specify the size of that "everywhere"?
You had confirmed that the size of the Universe was 90MLY when its age was 380,000 Years.
Quote
Quote
So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"
Sounds plausible, except the figure should be 380,000 years. Maybe it wasn’t known to more than one digit back then.
So, do you agree that at the Big bang moment the size of the Universe should be at least smaller than that?
Even if the Big Bang set a size of 90 MLY at its first moment, how do you call that size "everywhere"?
Just for your information, based on Google translate:
Everywhere - "in all places or directions. everywhere was in darkness".
Hence, don't you agree that everywhere means endless or infinite?
Actually you confirm that the Universe is infinite:
It it is infinite, there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite, so your logic falls apart. The size of the universe was always infinite, however much compressed in the beginning.

So, as you confirm that:

1. "there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite".
2. The maximal size of the Universe was only 90MLY at age of 380,000

Then how can you fit that "everywhere" or the infinite Universe into a finite 90MLY (or less) at age 380,000?
How a finite Universe at 90MLY could be transformed into infinite Universe in 13.4 Years?
If it was 90MLY or less, then why do you call it "everywhere"?

Please - based on the BBT, what was the size of the Universe before the bang and 10^-40 sec after the bang?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 12/12/2020 08:38:40
Quote from: Dave Lev
once you set the inflation - there is no way to stop it.
At the present time, there is no solid evidence about what caused cosmic inflation.
- Everything we can see about it is hidden behind the opaque veil of the CMBR, which blocks all electromagnetic radiation.

There are some ideas that inflation may have been like a phase change...
- eg as a solid heats up, it changes to liquid. This phase change stops when all the solid has become liquid
- Some suggest that today's accelerating expansion of the universe may be a similar phase change effect
- It is possible that after this phase change, there may be more coming.
 
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

In future, we may not be limited to seeing with electromagnetic radiation.
- Neutrinos and Gravitational Waves interact much more weakly with matter than electromagnetism
- One day, we may be able to detect relic neutrinos and Gravitational Waves from the Big Bang, allowing scientists to peer back to timescales around 1 second after the Big Bang, which will provide a lot of information that we don't have today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 09:29:12
At the present time, there is no solid evidence about what caused cosmic inflation.
- Everything we can see about it is hidden behind the opaque veil of the CMBR, which blocks all electromagnetic radiation.
Well, what we can't see is irrelevant. We must focus only on what we see.

We currently discuss on the BBT theory.
You can claim that based on this theory the universe size is finite or infinite.
You can claim that when the universe age was 10^-40 sec its size was one Planck size or infinite.
You can claim that when the universe age was 380,000 Ly its size was 90MLY or infinite.
You can also set the inflation speed to one meter per day or 50 Billions times the speed of light.

I'm ready to accept any idea that you wish on the BBT.
However, once you set all your ideas for that theory it is your obligation to verify that there is no integrated contradiction in that theory.

Therefore, do you agree that:
If the size of the Universe was 90ML at age of 380,000 year, there is no way for it to set an infinite Universe after 13.4 BY?
If the size of the Universe at age 10^-40 was already infinite (everywhere), how could it be that at age 380,000 Y it was only 90MLY?
So please – as there is a clear integrated contradiction in the BBT, this theory is irrelevant.

If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.

Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
If you really don't know then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 11:57:09
Who really ignores the ... law of physics?
You.
You are the one who is proposing that matter is continuously created in the universe, even though the science and maths shows that this is impossible.
.
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.
You didn't use the right formula, did you?
The one you used is a Newtonian one, and what you need is a relativistic one.

If you actually understood what you were talking about, you would have realised that.
But you didn't.
Because you don't.

How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?
Are you able to show (using real science , not made-up nonsense) how the BBT does not model the universe?
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:37:29
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".
It's the universe.
What the **** can it "escape" from?
Escape velocity - Ve
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]

Ve = √ 2GM/r
"Where G is the universal gravitational constant (G ≈ 6.67×10−11 m3•kg−1•s−2), M the mass of the body to be escaped from, and r the distance from the center of mass of the body to the object"

Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
"In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time. It is also the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with Planck mass. It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m"

Hence
r = 1.616255(18)×10−35 m

If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infinite
M= ∞

Therefore, the requested escape velocity after the Big Bang from that Planck size is also infinite

Ve = √ 2GM/r =  √ 2G∞/1.616255(18)×10−35 m = ∞

Hence, the requested escape velocity from that planck size after the Big bang is infinite.

Therefore:

Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real Universe

You keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.

Who really ignores the escape velocity law of physics?

Like what?
No need.
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.

I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.
How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?

The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.
So there must have been a start.
That is correct.
However, it is clearly not due to the BBT fatal model

OK, so you agree that the Universe has a start.
Either it started "everywhere at once" which is impossible, or it started somewhere and grew.
In which case, exactly the same problems will occur with any model you come up with for an infinite universe.
Yes that makes teh BBT difficult.
But it also makes your model impossible.
And your model was already impossible due to Olbers paradox and the conservation of energy/ mass.

Since there are now three reasons that your model is impossible, but none for the BBT, why don't you accept that it is your impossible idea that should be put in the bin?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 17:28:25
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38
Who really ignores the ... law of physics?
You.
You are the one who is proposing that matter is continuously created in the universe, even though the science and maths shows that this is impossible.
No
Einstein has already told us in his ENPC theory that new particles could be created.
You are the one that claim that Einstein is wrong while you are wrong.
However, please ignore Einstein as we currently focus on the BBT.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.
You didn't use the right formula, did you?
The one you used is a Newtonian one, and what you need is a relativistic one.

You are wrong again
The relativistic formula should give exactly the same answer as Newtonian one.
If you still think differently - prove it.

OK, so you agree that the Universe has a start.
Sure
Either it started "everywhere at once" which is impossible, or it started somewhere and grew.
So you confirm that it "it started somewhere and grew".
Thanks - I fully agree with that explanation.

You also confirm that Halc idea of "everywhere" isn't realistic.

In which case, exactly the same problems will occur with any model you come up with for an infinite universe.
Yes that makes teh BBT difficult

As you agree that there is a problem with any theory including the BBT and as you confirm that there is also a difficult with the BBT, this theory is useless.
Please be aware that you actually confirm that there is integrated contradiction in the BBT theory.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38
How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?
Are you able to show (using real science , not made-up nonsense) how the BBT does not model the universe?
Sure.
You have just confirmed it
As you also can't answer the following questions:
If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.

Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
If you really don't know then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.
It proves that the BBT is useless


But it also makes your model impossible.
I agree that any theory that can't offer real answer for that key problem should also join the BBT at the garbage even if it is my theory.
Since there are now three reasons that your model is impossible, but none for the BBT,
You have just confirmed that there is a problem with the BBT.
Yes that makes teh BBT difficult.
So how can you claim that there is none for the BBT?

why don't you accept that it is your impossible idea that should be put in the bin?
Once we all agree that the BBT is useless and set it in the Bin, we can open our mind to new theory.
I'm ready to set my theory in that bin if there is integrated contradiction in the theory.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:17:54
You are the one that claim that Einstein is wrong while you are wrong.
It's nothing to do with the people who drafted the theories.
It's to do with the fact that continuous generation is known to be impossible.
You really need to focus on that.

I agree that any theory that can't offer real answer for that key problem should also join the BBT at the garbage even if it is my theory.
OK, so you agree that, because your idea can't offer a real answer to the key problem of breaking the laws of conservation, it should be in the garbage.
I guess that's a start.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:18:34
It proves that the BBT is useless
No... it proves that you don't understand it.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:19:52
You have just confirmed that there is a problem with the BBT.
No, I didn't.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:22:38
I'm ready to set my theory in that bin if there is integrated contradiction in the theory.
Why has it taken so long for you to realise this?
Your idea was nonsense at the start, and plenty of people pointed this out.
Your idea ignores the fact that mass/ energy is conserved so continuous generation is impossible.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:23:42
So how can you claim that there is none for the BBT?
We have no evidence that the universe is infinite,
In a finite universe the BBT works fine.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 19:20:04
It proves that the BBT is useless
No... it proves that you don't understand it.
As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:

If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.

Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
.
If you really don't know the answer for the above questions - then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 19:29:52
As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:
Because I understand it, I know that a question like
1. Before the Big Bang.
makes no sense.

And because I understand science I understand that a comment like
Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
is really stupid.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 19:35:38
As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:
Because I understand it, I know that a question like
1. Before the Big Bang.
makes no sense.

And because I understand science I understand that a comment like
Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
is really stupid.
As you clearly can't answer what is the size of the Universe:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
You prove that you have no clue how the BBT really works.
As long as you have no clue how the BBT really works and you avoid answering those questions - the BBT would stay at the garbage.

It is similar to a designer that tries to design an airplane without any clue about its total size, its wings or its tail size
That airplane would never fly..
Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.
In the same token, as you can't tell us about the size of the universe based on your theory, then your theory is useless.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 20:10:17
Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.
The most important thing about a theory is that you can check it.
There is no way to check the size of the universe.
So the size of the universe can not possible be an important aspect of any theory.

Like I said. you are asking silly questions.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/12/2020 06:10:22
Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.
The most important thing about a theory is that you can check it.
There is no way to check the size of the universe.
So the size of the universe can not possible be an important aspect of any theory.

Like I said. you are asking silly questions.

Wow - What a nonsense.
Our BBT scientists can tell us long story about the first second of the Big bang without seeing that first second.
They even divide it to 10^43 frames just to show how cleaver they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Very_early_universe
They have set a special Planck epoch   <10−43 s    for that first second:
"The Planck scale is the physical scale beyond which current physical theories may not apply, and cannot be used to calculate what happened. During the Planck epoch, cosmology and physics are assumed to have been dominated by the quantum effects of gravity."
Then comes the Grand_unification_epoch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
In physical cosmology, assuming that nature is described by a Grand Unified Theory, the grand unification epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe following the Planck epoch, starting at about 10−43 seconds after the Big Bang, in which the temperature of the universe was comparable to the characteristic temperatures of grand unified theories. If the grand unification energy is taken to be 1015 GeV, this corresponds to temperatures higher than 10^27 K. During this period, three of the four fundamental interactions—electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the weak interaction—were unified as the electronuclear force. Gravity had separated from the electronuclear force at the end of the Planck era. During the grand unification epoch, physical characteristics such as mass, charge, flavour and colour charge were meaningless.
The grand unification epoch ended at approximately 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang.."

Did you really see this fist 10^-36 sec???
How could those BBT scientists claim for a Temp of 10^27 K during the grand unification epoch which ended at approximately 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang without knowing the size of the Universe in that epoch?

How could they tell us so clearly about the Inflation epoch?
"Inflationary epoch and the rapid expansion of space
Before c. 10^−32 seconds after the Big Bang
Main articles: Inflationary epoch and Expansion of space
At this point of the very early universe, the metric that defines distance within space suddenly and very rapidly
changed in scale, leaving the early universe at least 10^78 times its previous volume (and possibly much more).

How do they know that the early universe had been increased at least 10^78 times its previous volume (and possibly much more) in just 10^-32 sec without knowing the size of the Universe before or after?

Sorry -
Our BBT scientists are very cleaver when it comes to the Silly people that can't challenge their unrealistic theory, but they are totally silly when it comes to real questions.

You couldn't even answer one question about the size of the Universe.
Not in the past, not today and not in the Future.
So, all you say is actually - "We don't know as we can't see"

Sorry - if you can't see and you don't know the answer for those four simple questions - then your theory is useless.
You avoid those questions just in order to avoid the Internal contradiction i the BBT.

I'm ready to accept any imagination that you may have in the BBT:
1. You can claim that there was no space, no matter and no energy before the Big Bang (while you don't know what was there before).
2. You can say that you due to "Northern Theory"  you can get the whole energy for our entire universe in less than 10^43 of a Sec while you know that this theory can't work without space.
3. You can claim that the space itself can be created out of nothing and it even could expand its volume in only 10^-32 of a second by 10^78 Times while you bypass the relativity law and the clear message from Einstein that this idea is absolutely incorrect.
4. You can claim that in 10^-6 sec all of that energy had been transformed to real matter due to electromagnetic in the QM while there was no matter to start that QM & EM.

We can continue more and more with the BBT imagination.
I'm ready to accept any imagination that you might have on the BBT.

However once you set the roles for this imagination theory - you can't tell us that They don't know what was the size at each epoch.
If Those BBT scientists really don't know, then it's better for them to look for better Job.

You don't offer answers as you try to avoid the internal contradiction in this useless theory that is called BBT.

So, as long as you can't offer real answer for the size of the Universe:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-43 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
The BBT theory would be set at the garbage.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 08:40:32
So, all you say is actually - "We don't know as we can't see"
That isn't what I said.
And you don't seem to have a clue how science works.
. You can say that you due to "Northern Theory"  you can get the whole energy for our entire universe in less than 10^43 of a Sec while you know that this theory can't work without space.
No
We know that Noether's theory (and you should check your spelling) says that you can't create energy or mass i.
And we know that the theory only applies in space (simplistically).
But since we are talking about the creation of space, there isn't any space yet.
So the theory does not apply yet.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.

Do you understand that yet?

Also, you keep asking what happened before time started.
Do you understand how stupid that question is?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/12/2020 19:41:18
since we are talking about the creation of space, there isn't any space yet.
So the theory does not apply yet.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.
Based on your understanding there was no space in our universe before the bang.
Without a space there was also no Universe. So, there was no space and no Universe before the bang.

Hence, why do you claim that it is a silly question to ask about the conditions before the bang?
 
Also, you keep asking what happened before time started.
Do you understand how stupid that question is?

Why can't you just say that there was no space and no Universe before the bang?
However, without space it is even more difficult task for the BBT to deliver any energy.
We all know that there is no way to have energy or matter at no-space or absolutely zero space.
So, the BBT should generate Space and energy at the same moment.

How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?
Can you use any sort of formula without space?
Does QM works without space?
How any scientist can accept the idea of no space in the early time before the bang?
However, even if we agree on that:



So the theory does not apply yet.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.
Sorry - Energy wouldn't be created without space.
You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.
If there was no space 13.8 B years ago, then there was no space 100 By ago and even today there couldn't be any space.
However as we live today in the space of our universe - then there was surly a space before that bang.

Let's accept thes idea of no space in the BBT.
Let's assume that somehow the MIGHTY BBT had the power to create a space and energy as requested.
So, let's go back to the Planck epoch time
Why our scientists call it the Planck epoch?
Could it be that as they assume that before the Big bang there was no space then somehow the Universe must start with small size as plank size after the bang?
So, we have an answer for the size of the Universe just after the bang.
Hence, at the first moment after the Bang, the space of the early universe was in the size of a Planck while the entire energy of the whole Universe was concentrated at that size while there was no matter.
However, in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.
Without matter after the bang – there is no EM. Hence, as there was no matter after the bang, there also no EM and therefore – There is no way to convert the BBT energy to real matter.
So, at that point we do understand that the BBT can't transform any energy into matter. Therefore it’s the time to set the BBT at the garbage.

In any case, even if somehow all the energy had been transformed into ordinary matter – somehow that matter which represents the entire mass of the Universe was concentrated at a fairly small space. 
At this case, the Bang should end as a Mighty SMBH
That is one more key understanding why the BBT is useless.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 20:12:33
Hence, why do you claim that it is a silly question to ask about the conditions before the bang?
What is north of the North pole?

If time started with the big bang then you are talking about "at a time before there was time".
Do you see how that makes no sense?

Why can't you just say that there was no space and no Universe before the bang?
I can say that.
I probably did say it.
I certainly said that the BB was the start of the universe and that tells you that there was no universe before the BB.




So, the BBT should generate Space and energy at the same moment.
Yes.
How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?
I already answered that.
The current best view is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.

How any scientist can accept the idea of no space in the early time before the bang?
They don't
" time before the bang"
is a contradiction in terms.
You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.
I'm not the one seeking to bypass the laws of physics.
Your silly idea about continuous generation is the one doing that.



BBT to deliver any energy.
The BBT doesn't deliver the energy
It is the result of the energy being delivered.


How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?
I can keep posting this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
It won't help until you understand it, so there's no point in you asking the same question again.


Sorry - Energy wouldn't be created without space.
Nobody said they were.
They were created at the same time.

You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.
You were the one who said that it was anything to do with space.
I pointed out that it was really to do with time.
Symmetry in time is the reason why energy is conserved.
But at the start of time it is not symmetrical, so energy need not be conserved.


However as we live today in the space of our universe - then there was surly a space before that bang
No
The bang was the creation of both the space and the time.
It was the creation of spacetime.


Why our scientists call it the Planck epoch?
Because it's when the universe was smaller than the Planck length.
Could it be that as they assume that before the Big bang there was no space then somehow the Universe must start with small size as plank size after the bang?
No. They assume it started smaller, and grew that big in about 10^-43 sec or something.


So, we have an answer for the size of the Universe just after the bang.
It was presumably smaller than that when it started.
So what?
However, in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.
You keep saying that.
I keep on pointing out that you are wrong.
Why won't you learn?

So, at that point we do understand that the BBT can't transform any energy into matter. Therefore it’s the time to set the BBT at the garbage.
That claim is based on you saying this "in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.". But that's just plain wrong.

Why do you believe it?
Did you misunderstand a book somewhere or what?



Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 03:40:34
1. Hyperspace
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:18
How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?
I already answered that.
The current best view is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.
It is stated:
The central idea is that the visible, three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk" (also known as "hyperspace").
Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology related to string theory, superstring theory and M-theory.

Sorry, the idea that our three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space is not realistic.
If you wish to belive in that it is your choice.

2. Electromagnetic transformation
That claim is based on you saying this "in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.". But that's just plain wrong.

Well, I hope that you agree that just after the bang - the laws of physics must work.

The four forces of nature are considered to be the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, which has residual effects, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.
However, Gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force can work only when there is already matter.
So, they can't convert energy into matter.
Therefore, the only force that can convert energy into matter is EM as each particle is actually a cell of energy. So the EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.
If you don't understand that - you don't understand physics!

Therefore, each particle in our Universe got its energy by EM transformation.
Hence, without EM, the Big Bang won't create even one tiny particle.

3. SMBH after the Bnag
As you confirm:
Because it's when the universe was smaller than the Planck length.

So why after the bang while the early universe was very small and full with matter, it didn't collapse into a SMBH?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 09:22:18
So why after the bang while the early universe was very small and full with matter, it didn't collapse into a SMBH?
One property- some would say a definition- definition of the Planck length is that it's the scale below which we don't expect the laws of physics to work properly.
(This is not an excuse for breaking them at whim).
However, since you believe this
" Gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force can work only when there is already matter."
And you think there isn't any matter, you believe there is no gravity.
So there can't be the ultimate SMBH you talk about.

EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.
No.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.
So
If you don't understand that - you don't understand physics!

Sorry, the idea that our three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space is not realistic.
You have spent long enough clinging to an idea of spontaneous generation- even though it is known to be impossible- that we all know that you can not judge what is realistic.
You can't? can you?
You think this is realistic
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg596466#msg596466
but it's plainly wrong.
You do not know how to tell if something is realistic.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 10:21:49
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:40:34
EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.
No.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.
So
The strong nuclear force can work ONLY once you have the quarks.
However, how those quarks could be created by pure energy while there are no matter no particles and no EM?
Sorry - You don't have a basic clue why the EM is so important for quark creation!
Therefore, as long as you claim that the BBT can only deliver space and energy - there is no way for any sort of quark or particle to be created!
This is real science!

Hence, you have two options:
1. Change the BBT to deliver the EM/Quarks with the first creation of energy and space
Or
2. Set the BBT idea in the garbage.


Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 12:46:36
The strong nuclear force can work ONLY once you have the quarks.
You keep saying that.
You say it as if it is somehow obviously true.
But you have not said why you think it is true (and you are actually wrong)

There's another point.
The early universe was full of energy.
If that wasn't in the form of the 4 fundamental forces, you have to explain what form it was in.
What options are there?
Sorry - You don't have a basic clue why the EM is so important for quark creation!
It's not that I don't have a clue why it is needed.
It's that I know it is not needed.
I don't have to explain a figment of your imagination.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 12:49:20
1. Change the BBT to deliver the EM/Quarks with the first creation of energy and space
Or
That's not a change to the theory.
What would be a change would be your (impossible- as usual) idea that there was energy in the eagerly universe but that it wasn't in the form of EM, gravity, strong + weak forces (or combinations thereof)

You are saying we should bin the theory because you don't understand it.
Wouldn't it be better to bin your opinion?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 17:16:15
The early universe was full of energy.
So, you confirm that at the first moment the Universe was full with energy. However, you only mention energy. So, there was no particle or quark at the first moment.

If that wasn't in the form of the 4 fundamental forces, you have to explain what form it was in.
Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.
As I have already explained -
Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.
Same issue with weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Those forces won't work without Atom particle or quark.

Hence, the ONLY left over force that could set a work in that early universe is EM.
However, as the early Universe can't generate any EM without matter, then there is no way for it to transform its energy into any sort of particle or quark.

Dear Halc, Kryptid & evan_au

I would like to get your feedback about this issue.
Do you think that any quark or particle could be created by energy while there is no EM or any matter at all?
If yes, would you kindly explain how it works and offer Examples?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 18:26:38


Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.
A photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism

Learn physics.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 18:29:08
I would like to get your feedback about this issue.
I gave you feedback.
You ignored it and prattled on about stupid things like "Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces."
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 20:06:05
Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.
A photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism

Learn physics.

It's better for you to learn real physics
You have just confirmed my explanation.
As the photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism, it is clear that without EM there is no photon.
Please remember that photon is actually a massles particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).

We have already confirmed that the Universe after the bang was full with energy (However - there was No EM or any sort of particle).
Therefore, as a photon is a cell of energy (or particle) in the form of electromagnetisms and as there is no way to generate this particle (or any other mass or mass less particle) without EM, it is clear that the entire energy of the BBT won't create even one photon or quark.

Is it clear to you by now?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 20:21:07
Please remember that photon is actually a massles particle.
Yes and no.
It has zero rest mass, but it has a relativistic mass from E=MC2
Please learn some physics.
As the photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism, it is clear that without EM there is no photon.
It is equally clear that without photons there is no EM energy.
By similar reasoning, you can show that if there were no photons, gluons. gravitons and W and Z bosons.

But, it's plain that there was energy.
So those particles must have been there.

What other form of energy could it have been?

Is it clear to you by now?
What is clear to me is that you don't understand this.

You have it the wrong way round.
There was energy
That energy must have been in some combination of the 4 fundamental forces.
Those forces only exist by virtue of force carries- the photon, which carries the EM force, is the best known.
So if there was EM energy there were photons.
So there were particles- that's what QM tells you; energy comes in lumps.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 16/12/2020 20:45:23
Quote from: Dave Lev
Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.
Not quite right. Gravity works with mass.
- As you imply, matter has mass, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc2, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- That is why the path of light is bent when passing close by the Sun.

Quote
Same issue with weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Those forces won't work without Atom particle or quark.
It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 21:02:14
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev
Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.
Not quite right. Gravity works with mass.
- As you imply, matter has mass, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc2, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field..

A particale has mass and therefore its mass is equivalent to E=mc2.
There is a possibility to convert energy to mass by creating new particale as it also represents a cell of energy.
However, in order to do so we MUST use EM transformation.
So, energy could be transformed to mass by EM and ONLY by EM.
Without EM there is no way to transform the energy into mass.

 
That is why the path of light is bent when passing close by the Sun.
Light is also a form of particale.
Therefore it is effected by gravity.

It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
Well, there is no way to create any particale or Atom without EM.

So if there was EM energy there were photons.
That is correct, but again based on the BBT there was only energy after the bang.
That energy won't create any sort of EM without matter/particle. So again - as there were no particles after the bang, there was no EM to generate any sort of particle.
So, without particles that carry EM there is no way to generate new particles.
Therefore - the BBT can't generate any sort of particle
 
But, it's plain that there was energy.
So those particles must have been there.

What other form of energy could it have been?
Well, all the particles that we have in our universe are there due EM.
Due to Einstein New Particle Creation theory -  New particles are created in our Universe.
So, only particle/matter can generate EM. Therefore, all the particles are there due to other Particles.
As long as you reject Einstein theory - you reject real science.

I have no intention to argue with you any more about Einstein ENPC theory.
It is your problem.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 21:10:13
However, in order to do so we MUST use EM transformation.
Have you forgotten already?
No.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.


Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 21:12:00
Well, there is no way to create any particale or Atom without EM.
Even if that was true it wouldn't be important, would it?
There's plenty of EM energy in the aftermath of the BB.

So, even if you were right, it wouldn't matter.
Please stop repeating this nonsense.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 21:14:00
Due to Einstein New Particle Creation theory -
That's not a theory.
In Einstein's day it was an hypothesis.
Today it's a mistake.
It's known to be a mistake because it breaks the conservation laws.
Please stop repeating that nonsense too.
I have no intention to argue with you any more about Einstein ENPC theory.
It does not exist.
You are the only one trying to argue about it.
Please stop.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/12/2020 19:03:54
It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
With regards to unification_epoch
In the following article it is stated that "The universe was pure energy at this stage"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch beginning at 10−43 seconds, where gravitation separated from the other forces as the universe's temperature fell.[23] The universe was pure energy at this stage; too hot for any particles of matter to be created."

So, based on the BBT there was no Mass or Matter immediately after the bang. Just Pure energy.
Therefore, we can claim that M=0
The question is:
How pure energy could exist without mass?

So, first let's understand the real meaning of energy (or energy density):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume. It may also be used for energy per unit mass,"

However - if in that system or region of space there is no mass at all, can we claim that there is any energy there?
Please remember that it is stated that Energy density may also be used for energy per unit mass.
So, how energy could exist while there is no mass in that system or region of space?
Is there any meaning for Kinetic Energy or otential energy while there is no matter at all?
Can you please offer a form of energy without matter or mass?

Actually, you claim that "energy also has mass".
- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc2, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.

So, if that PURE energy is mass, why they don't claim for mass?
Why do they insist on pure Energy?
According to Einstein: E=mc2
Hence, if M= 0 Then E=0

Please look again on the following long list of "Tables of energy content"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
For each storage type as: Hydrogen (fusion), Wood, Uranium... they offer the relevant/secific energy:

Just as an example:
For Diesel fuel the specific energy is 45.6.
So, if I have can generate a specific energy is 45.6 does it mean that I can generate diesel fuel?
As the answer is no, don't you agree that the Diesel fuel can be converted into specific energy of 45.6, but there is no instant way to convert specific energy of 45.6 to diesel fuel.

In the same token:
Let's look on Plutonium-239:
Plutonium-239 (239Pu, Pu-239) is an isotope of plutonium. Plutonium-239 is the primary fissile isotope used for the production of nuclear weapons.
So, if we break this isotope we convert  the missing mass to energy, however what is needed to convert back the broken isotope to Plutonium-239?
Can we just add the missing energy and fix it back to Plutonium-239?
Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?

Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.
Mass can be converted to energy in a brief of moment, but energy can't be converted to mass in the same time frame.
Theoretically - we could convert energy to mass - but it is a very long process and as I have stated - there is no way to achieve it without EM.
CERN is a perfect example
https://home.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex
"The accelerator complex at CERN is a succession of machines that accelerate particles to increasingly higher energies. Each machine boosts the energy of a beam of particles, before injecting the beam into the next machine in the sequence."
Their accelerators are based on ultra strong EM machine.
So again - a pure energy without EM won't create any sort of particle.

Therefore, if after the bang there was only pure energy - that pure energy won't create even one tiny quark or particle without EM.
Even if that energy was 100% EM energy, it should take it very long time to be converted to all the quarks/particles in the Universe.
Therefore, the assumption that 10^-6 sec after the bang whole of that pure energy had been converted to the whole quarks in the entire Universe is a pure imagination.
The BBT is useless. This is real science!!!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/12/2020 19:45:32
no Mass or Matter immediately
Mass and matter are not the same thing.
There was no matter, but there was a universe worth of mass.


Actually, you claim that "energy also has mass".
That's not really my claim, it's Einstein's.
E=MC2
It may also be used for energy per unit mass,"
If you are talking about batteries or petrol.
If you are talking about relativistic mass, the energy density is always the same.  The energy per unit mass is c squared.
But that's not what they are talking about there.

why they don't claim for mass?
Who is "they"?
 What do you mean "claim for"?


So, if I have can generate a specific energy is 45.6 does it mean that I can generate diesel fuel?
You do not seem to understand that the word "specific" has two meanings.
It doesn't (in this case) mean "special" it means "per amount of stuff by mass or by volume).
The best known example is the use of the phrase "specific gravity" for the mass per unit volume or the "specific heat capacity"- the heat capacity measured with respect to a given mass of water.

It really would be better if you learned some physics.
Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?
No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.

Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.
It isn't an assumption.
It is an observation.
It's also a deduction.
You can't idolise Einstein for his mistake but say his famed formula is wrong.


energy can't be converted to mass in the same time frame.
It does not need to be converted into mass.
It always has mass.
My coffee does not have to be "converted to brown". It is brown.
You still seem not to understand that "matter" is not the same as "mass".
So again - a pure energy without EM won't create any sort of particle.
We find it easy to control electrical energy
But, in principle, there's nothing to stop the same reactions happening due to a different acceleration.
Two neutrons falling into a black hole would hit hard enough to do exciting physics.
But it's not a convenient experiment.

You can do matter energy interconversion without an EM field.

Again, it really would be better if you knew the physics . That way  you would stop making these embarrassing mistakes.
Therefore, if after the bang there was only pure energy - that pure energy won't create even one tiny quark or particle without EM.
If that was true (and it is false) it would not matter
Even if that was true it wouldn't be important, would it?
There's plenty of EM energy in the aftermath of the BB.

So, even if you were right, it wouldn't matter.
Please stop repeating this nonsense.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/12/2020 19:49:18
For Diesel fuel the specific energy is 45.6.
No. It is not.
No competent scientist would say that.
The table is correct but you didn't even copy it right because you do not understand science.
So
This is real science!!!
is absurd.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/12/2020 06:26:59
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:03:54
Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?
No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.

Well, do you need energy to create those Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen?
Or do you mean that you get Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen "free of charge" without any investment of external energy"?

 
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:03:54
Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.
It isn't an assumption.
It is an observation.
Please show me your observation for energy that is converted to mass!!!
Do you mean the Hawking radiation?

Let's verify the message from Hawking radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle–antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[citation needed] As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.[10]
An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon."

If I remember correctly, you have stated that "the black hole's gravitational energy" isn't real energy.
Therefore, in order to keep the LAW of energy conservation, new particle–antiparticle pair must created. However while one particle has Positive mass, the other one must have negative mass.
So, technically those pair had been created without any investment of "real" energy.
Therefore, while the negative mass particle falls into the BH, it reduces the total mass of the BH.
Therefore, based on Hawking we actually reduce the mass of the BH by the same mass of the positive particle which had been emitted from the BH.
All of that without any investment of energy.
In other words - you confirm that today energy can't be converted to real particle:
No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.
If one atom of Hydrogen is created - there must be another anti hydrogen (with negative mass) that also must be created.
Based on your understanding/estimation, there is no way for today for any BH/SMBH in the whole Universe to use its EM energy to create a pair of particles with negative charge but both with positive mass. .

However, when it comes to the BBT, you are positively sure that pure energy after the bang worth mass:
There was no matter, but there was a universe worth of mass.
So why 13.8 By ago a pure energy in the universe worth mass, while today there is no way to convert the BH EM energy to mass?

As long as you insist that today:
1. For any particle with positive mass that is created, there must be identical negative mass particale.
2. There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create them

You must use those assumptions also for the activities that took place after the bang.
If today pure energy can't worth Mass, then also 13.8 Byears ago, pure energy can't worth mass.
You can't twist the law of science as you wish!
You insist for real observation
It isn't an assumption.
It is an observation.
So, please show the observation for the imaginary negative mass particle!!
As there is not even one negative particle mass in the entire Universe and as this assumption is a pure fiction - You are totally lost
You and all the BBT scientists including Hawking have no clue how real particles (both with positive mass) are created today. Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.
Your BBT theory is useless.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/12/2020 10:25:12
Or do you mean that you get Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen "free of charge" without any investment of external energy"?
No
I understand the conservation of energy/ mass.
It's you who thinks you can create particles by magic.
Remember, you wrote a big pointless thread about it- you called it "theory 4", even though it wasn't a theory.


Well, do you need energy to create those Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen?
What I said was that, with enough energy, you can build an atom of hydrogen and an atom of anti hydrogen.
And your response is to ask if I need energy to do it.
Why don't you learn to read?

Do you mean the Hawking radiation?
No.
We explained that- but you refuse to understand it.
Because it is a different process (witch you got muddled about) the rest of your post makes no sense.

However, when it comes to the BBT, you are positively sure that pure energy after the bang worth mass:
I don't think you understood the phrase "worth of".
So why 13.8 By ago a pure energy in the universe worth mass, while today there is no way to convert the BH EM energy to mass?
There is a way to get black holes to produce particles, but only at the expense of the BH disappearing slowly.
Your idea of an infinitely old universe must be wrong because (among other problems) all the BH would have evaporated.

As long as you insist that today:
1. For any particle with positive mass that is created, there must be identical negative mass particale.
2. There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create them

Please learn to read and pay attention.
It isn't that I insist on the first one.
The universe insists on the first one.

And the second one is the opposite of what I actually said.


If today pure energy can't worth Mass
Nobody competent said that.
You can't twist the law of science as you wish!
It isn't me twisting it.
The problem is you don't understand it.
That's why you think silly things like the idea that I might have said this:

There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create them
When I said the opposite.


So, please show the observation for the imaginary negative mass particle!!
That's got practically nothing to do with this issue.


You and all the BBT scientists including Hawking have no clue how real particles (both with positive mass) are created today.
We do understand that you can't create them from "Nothing"- that's from Noether's hundred year old theory.

We know that they are not created in the way that your silly idea said they could be.
Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.
Yes I can. It's called pair creation.
And we can do experiments on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

You seem to think that because you are ignorant, we can't do something.
That's a very stupid viewpoint.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/12/2020 17:09:41
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:26:59
Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.
Yes I can. It's called pair creation.
And we can do experiments on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Thanks
In this article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"The photon's energy is converted to particle mass in accordance with Einstein’s equation, E = m ⋅ c2; where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light. The photon must have higher energy than the sum of the rest mass energies of an electron and positron (2 ⋅ 511 keV = 1.022 MeV, resulting in a photon-wavelength of 1.2132 picometer) for the production to occur."
Hence, it is clearly stated that in order for the pair particles production to occur, somehow we must supply energy which is equal to the sum of both particles energies.
It is also stated:
"The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum.[4] Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil. The reverse of this process is electron positron annihilation."
It is clearly stated that "The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum" and also that " the atomic nucleus receives some recoil", However, they do not explain how the energy transformation from the BH to the pair really works.
Therefore, would you kindly explain how the BH transfers some of its energy to the creation of this pair?

In any case, as it is clearly state that:  "The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum".
So, a pair production could ONLY take place near the nucleus of the BH.
I hope that you do understand the meaning of that message:
Any kind of new pair particles/quarks production must take place near a nucleus of the BH in order to satisfy conservation of momentum.
Is it clear to you by now? If not let me whisper the following:
As there were no BH after the Big Bang and as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum NOT EVEN ONE PARTICLES/QUARKS PAIR COULD BE CREATED!!!
Hence, do you finely understand why the garbage is a good place for the BBT?
If not, then please show us how you are going to twist the law of physics (conservation of energy and momentum) in order to hold the BBT.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/12/2020 19:14:21
Hence, it is clearly stated that in order for the pair particles production to occur, somehow we must supply energy which is equal to the sum of both particles energies.
Not a problem.

"The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum.[4] Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil.
You forgot to bold this bit " in free space "
In the turmoil of the early Universe, the density of photons is vastly higher than the density of a nucleus.
That's enough to solve the momentum conservation problem.

So, there's no difficulty with pair production in the early Universe.


Do you understand that, when people write things like
The photon must be near a nucleus
they don't include caveats like "except in the first flash of the Universe"?

It's generally true, but not absolutely.
In fact anything that gives rise to a potential gradient is good enough.


I hope that you do understand the meaning of that message:
Yes.
I do.
It's a pity you didn't but that's because you refuse to do as I suggest and learn some physics.
If you did, you wouldn't make mistakes like this
a nucleus of the BH in

When the Wiki page talks about a "nucleus", the mean an atom's nucleus.
It's nothing to do with black holes. A black hole doesn't really have a nucleus- it has a singularity in the middle.

Why did you try to pretend that you need a BH to get pair formation?
Did you just not understand, or were you hoping I wouldn't notice the mistake?



As there were no BH after the Big Bang and as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum
Yes I can.
In the circumstances of the very early universe the photon(etc) density was high enough that you could use photons instead of nuclei.
Indeed, some of the photons would be more massive than nuclei.

So, what you said is wrong- because you don't understand the physics involved
Perhaps you will remember that  next time and avoid the embarrassment of being WRONG IN CAPITAL LETTERS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS LIKE THIS.
NOT EVEN ONE PARTICLES/QUARKS PAIR COULD BE CREATED!!!
Because it just makes you look childish.



If not, then please show us how you are going to twist the law of physics
As I pointed out before.
It isn't me twisting it.
The problem is you don't understand it.

I don't need to twist it, I just need to understand it.
You should try this approach. It's much more satisfying than posting nonsense and getting laughed at.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/12/2020 04:22:43
When the Wiki page talks about a "nucleus", the mean an atom's nucleus.
In the turmoil of the early Universe, the density of photons is vastly higher than the density of a nucleus.
That's enough to solve the momentum conservation problem.
So, there's no difficulty with pair production in the early Universe.
I would like to remind you that based on the BBT theory the Big Bang had delivered PURE energy and space.
Our BBT scientists do no claim that that Big Bang also delivered Atom nucleus or Photon in its first bang.
So, it is all about PURE energy.
Therefore, you can't just use Atom nucleus or Photon energy for the pair particle creation while we have no clue how those Atom nucleus or Photon had been created from that pure energy.

Therefore, your task is to show how the BBT Pure energy which had been delivered by the Big Bang (with space) could be converted to Atoms nucleus, Photons, quarks and all other forms of particles that are needed for the entire Universe in less than 10^-6 sec..

Why did you try to pretend that you need a BH to get pair formation?
In that article they also highlight the Pair production by BH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a quantum foam. In a region of strong gravitational tidal forces, the two particles in a pair may sometimes be wrenched apart before they have a chance to mutually annihilate. When this happens in the region around a black hole, one particle may escape while its antiparticle partner is captured by the black hole"

So our scientists assume that the new particles pair is created by the BH strong gravitational tidal forces.
However, they do not clearly explain how the energy transformation into the new created pair really works.
Are they sure that the strong gravitational tidal forces are good enough for the creation process?
What about EM? Don't you agree that it is also a vital element for that process?

In any case -
I hope that you agree that pure energy has no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.
So, Please show how the BBT Pure energy which had been delivered by the Big Bang (with space and free of charge) - could be converted to any sort of particle while there are no BH, no matter (any sort of matter) no EM and no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 22/12/2020 08:40:33
Quote from: Dave Lev
If one atom of Hydrogen is created - there must be another anti hydrogen (with negative mass) that also must be created.
An experiment is underway at LHC to discover if antimatter has negative mass, by seeing if it falls at 1g in Earth's gravity.
- It is a difficult experiment, and the first attempts had really big uncertainties (bigger than 1 g)
- They are retrying it with more precise equipment.
- Most physicists think that antimatter will have positive mass (partly because of E=mc2), but they are testing it to make sure!
See: https://home.cern/science/experiments/aegis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Properties

Quote
Please show how ...the Big Bang ... (has) no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.
On the contrary, it is thought that there were very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang.
- Scientists are trying to detect relic gravitational waves from the Big Bang (but it's not clear how you would do this - it requires very different equipment from LIGO/VIRGO, since the frequencies are expected to be much higher).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave_background#Cosmological_Sources
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/12/2020 16:48:12
Dear Evan-au
Thanks for your reply

Most physicists think that antimatter will have positive mass (partly because of E=mc2),
Yes, I fully agree with that.
There is not even one Antimatter particle with Negative mass in our entire Universe - Only positive mass!!!
Hence, the Hawking radiation theory for negative mass should be set in the garbage.
In any case, for any particles pair (both with positive mass) somehow Energy must be delivered.
Hence, if the requested energy for one particle is:
E1=mc2
Then for both particles it should be:
E=E1+E2 = mc2+mc2 = 2mc2
So, how a BH could deliver that energy to the new created particles pair?
I wonder what "Most physicists" think about that problem.
Why they reject the idea of EM energy transformation.
As electronic Engineer I'm well aware about the great impact of EM transformation.
We are using EM transformation/power supply for almost any electric equipment.
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to understand the great impact of EM transformation?
Don't they have a basic knowledge in EM & electronics?

 
- They are retrying it with more precise equipment.
They are wasting their time.
There is no negative mass and there will be no negative mass.

On the contrary, it is thought that there were very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang.
I assume that as it is thought that 10^-6 sec after the bang all the particles (base on the BBT theory) had been created, and therefore it is expected that there "were very strong gravitational effects".
However, as not even a single particle could be created from a pure energy, then the idea of "very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang" should be set in the garbage.

- Scientists are trying to detect relic gravitational waves from the Big Bang (but it's not clear how you would do this - it requires very different equipment from LIGO/VIRGO, since the frequencies are expected to be much higher).
Again - they are wasting their time for nothing.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 19:26:55
Our BBT scientists do no claim that that Big Bang also delivered Atom nucleus or Photon in its first bang.
So, it is all about PURE energy.
There' no point reminding me of things I already know.
But, as I pointed out before, that energy is - at least in part, in the form of EM energy and that- whether you like it or not- means photons.
You need to start paying attention.
Otherwise you just look childish.


I hope that you agree that pure energy has no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.
Why do you hope that I say Einstein was wrong?
He was, of course, quite right about this.
Energy does produce a gravitational field because it has mass according to Einstein's famed equation.

Again I have already pointed this out.
Again, you ignore it and look a fool.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 22/12/2020 23:17:10
Don't you think that Chemists are better than Physicists?   Because no Physicist seems certain of anything in their subject.

When you ask a Physicist a question, you never get a straight answer.. 

Whereas, if you ask a Chemist a question about their subject, you get a  precise, definite, and verifiable answer.

At least, that's the impression I get.  Do others feel the same?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 22/12/2020 23:26:43
An experiment is underway at LHC to discover if antimatter has negative mass, by seeing if it falls at 1g in Earth's gravity.
Seriously? Do they know that negative mass also 'falls down' under positive gravity? It's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around.  Just plug the numbers into F=GMm/r² and F=ma.  Acceleration 'a' is still positive in this situation.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 23:34:54
 Because no Physicist seems certain of anything in their subject.
Chemists usually find it easier to fund their experiments.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/12/2020 06:48:18
1. Photon creation
as I pointed out before, that energy is - at least in part, in the form of EM energy and that- whether you like it or not- means photons.
Congratulation!
Finely, you do understand that without EM energy there will be no photon No Atom nucleus and no any kind of matter!
So, let's agree that without EM energy a photon wouldn't be created!

2. EM energy
However, EM energy is quite special.
You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.
You also need some minimal space to set the energy transformation.
This is real physics.
So, 10^-46 sec before the big bang, while there was no Matter (No magnet no rotatable Dynamo) and no space in the universe - any sort of bang won't be able to deliver EM energy!!!
Therefore, as based on the BBT theory there was no magnets no rotatable dynamo and no space- there is no way to get EM energy by a bang.

3. Gravity
Let's assume that there was some kind of magnetic & dynamo and even some minimal space to deliver that EM energy.
Is that good enough to create any kind of matter including photons?
The answer is clearly NOT!
EM energy won't create even one photon without nearby strong gravity force. (As it was explained by the BH particle pair creation).
However, you assume that energy means mass and therefore there is gravity:
Why do you hope that I say Einstein was wrong?
He was, of course, quite right about this.
Energy does produce a gravitational field because it has mass according to Einstein's famed equation.
This is just pure of nonsense
Einstein has told us about the energy in the mass:
E=mc2
However, he didn't claim that if you have energy, then this energy should be transformed automatically to mass.
We have an evidence for that:
In atomic bomb we convert mass to energy.
Once it is energy it has no weight and no gravity force.
Therefore, energy has no gravity force.
If your imagination was correct then at the same moment of extracting energy from the atom mass, that energy should be converted back to mass.
That isn't the case and would never be.
Mass can be converted to energy in a brief of moment, but energy can't be converted to mass in a similar process.
You need strong gravity and EM energy to create particle pair.
As EM by itself can't generate any sort of gravity, there is no way for it to create even one photon

4. Different gravity forces at different space
Based on the BH particle creation we do understand that new particles pair could be created NEAR a strong gravity force, but no IN that gravity force/core. Therefore, our scientists do no claim that the pair is created inside the BH. ONLY nearby the BH - near the event of horizon.
So, special gravity conditions and EM energy are needed in order to generate even one particle.
However, based on the BBT the new created space was full with energy and gravity and there was no space outside that new created zone. Therefore, this new zone acts as a core of a BH. As no new particle could be created at the BH core (while it has EM energy and strong gravity), it is very clear that under those conditions not even one particle could be created at that new BBT zone/space.

5. Time
Don't you agree that it takes some time to generate particles pairs.
We clearly see that activity abound BH.
So, the idea that all the BBT energy could be transformed in less than 10^-6sec to the entire matter in the Universe is the Biggest science fiction by those people that are called BBT scientists.

6. Size of the entire Universe
In any case, let's assume that somehow against all the physics laws some particles could be created.
However, what is the real energy level that is needed just for the ordinary matter in the entire Universe?
As you don't know the size of the Universe you can't tell us if it is feasible to get all that energy free of charge.
Therefore, without clear message from those BBT scientists about the real size of the entire Universe - the BBT is useless.

7. Total EM Energy level/amplitude
Let's assume that somehow we can extract/calculate the total energy in the ordinary mass in the entire Universe
However, what is the real EM Energy level/amplitude that the BBT must deliver in order to create this total ordinary matter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
"According to the Big Bang theory, in the early universe, mass-less photons and massive fermions would inter-convert freely. As the photon gas expanded and cooled, some fermions would be left over (in extremely small amounts ~10−10) because low energy photons could no longer break them apart. Those left-over fermions would have become the matter we see today in the universe around us."
So, for each ordinary particle that we see today in our universe, an energy of 10^10 of its energy was needed.
Hence, as the energy in one particle is:
E= mc^2
The Big Bang had to deliver:
E(big bang energy for just one particle creation) = 10^10 * mc^2.

8. Dark matter and dark energy
Even if somehow the Big Bang could deliver 10^10 of the total energy in the entire ordinary matter in the Universe, it still must cover the dark matter and the dark energy.
As the ordinary matter is less than 4% of the total energy in the Universe, somehow the Big bang also must deliver that energy

Conclusion:
If you think that against all science laws and against all the contradictions in the BBT theory - this kind of energy could be delivered by a bang and then be converted to the ordinary matter in the Universe (exactly in the requested ratio between Ordinary matter - dark matter and dark energy) in less than 10^-6 of a sec, It's better for you to give up on the title "scientist".
Any one that believes in all the above fictions can't be considered as real scientist.
It is all pure imagination.
Its time to set the BBT at the garbage for the last time.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 23/12/2020 11:54:13
2. EM energy
However, EM energy is quite special.
You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.
Yes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it. This AC has a magnetic field, right? So, I have produced a magnetic field with an electrified object. No magnets.
In my thread What is electromagnetic induction? https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78632.0
I present a very simple experiment where I induce an electric current by means of an electrified glass plate and electrified vinyl plate. They have opposite effects. The experiment is extremely simple on the one hand, extremely important on the other hand and yet unknown to this science in the form presented.
Do you know why? Because the contemporary science is void of reality and full of fables.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/12/2020 13:22:04
Yes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it.

Would you kindly explain how to get EM energy while there is no electrified object, no piece of metal wire, no electrified glass plate, no electrified vinyl plate, no any sort of matter and the available space is infinite small?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 23/12/2020 13:34:23
Yes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it.

Would you kindly explain how to get EM energy while there is no electrified object, no piece of metal wire, no electrified glass plate, no electrified vinyl plate, no any sort of matter and the available space is infinite small?
I have no further comment.
You said that it is impossible to get EM energy without magnet.
I have presented experiment where I get EM energy with electrified glass (Plus electrification) and electrified vinyl (Minus electrification). No magnets.
That's all I wanted to say and I am out.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/12/2020 15:06:41
You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.
No
For example, the Sun shines.
Why do you make such obvious mistakes?
Do you enjoy being laughed at?


However, he didn't claim that if you have energy, then this energy should be transformed automatically to mass.
We have an evidence for that:
Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.
It does not need to be converted into mass.
It always has mass.
My coffee does not have to be "converted to brown". It is brown.
You still seem not to understand that "matter" is not the same as "mass".

You seem to accept that gravitational lensing is real.
And you seem to accept that photon pressure is real (and if you don't you aren't doing science, there's stacks of evidence.
If photons produce pressure then photons must carry momentum.
(Again the evidence proves that)
So you agree that a photon going past a massive object like a star will have its path changed by gravity.
And that means there's a change in momentum.
And that, in turn means there's a force.
And newtons laws  tell us that if star produces a force on the photon, the photon must produce a force on the star.

And that tells us that the photon has mass.

Energy has mass- calculated as  E=MC2


The Big Bang had to deliver:
E(big bang energy for just one particle creation) = 10^10 * mc^2.
And we are here
So something delivered that energy.
Why look at that as a problem?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/12/2020 14:02:31
And that tells us that the photon has mass.
In the following article it is stated that "Photons are massless,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
"A photon is massless,[d] has no electric charge,[18][19] and is a stable particle."
It is also stated why it is massless
"Current commonly accepted physical theories imply or assume the photon to be strictly massless. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light, c, in vacuum. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the upper bound on speed that any object could theoretically attain in spacetime.[32] Thus, it would still be the speed of spacetime ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons."
However, it has energy
"In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:[24]"

So, the photon is a mass less particle but it has energy E = pc.

Energy has mass- calculated as  E=MC2
No

Energy doesn't mean that it has mass.
We have just found that photon has energy but its mass is zero.

Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.
As I have proved, this is incorrect.
If energy is mass, then why is it absolutely impossible mission for us to convert energy to any kind of particle?
Our scientists claim that Mass is just a super-concentrated form of energy and, moreover, these things can turn from one form to the other and back again. Nuclear power stations exploit this idea inside their reactors where subatomic particles, called neutrons, are fired at the nuclei of uranium atoms, which causes the uranium to split into smaller atoms. The process of fission releases energy and further neutrons that can go on to split more uranium atoms. If you made very precise measurements of all the particles before and after the process, you would find that the total mass of the latter was very slightly smaller than the former, a difference known as the "mass defect". That missing matter has been converted to energy and you can calculate how much using Einstein's equation.
So, the process of converting mass to energy is very clear and simple.
However, as our scientists claim that energy is mass then why can't we convert energy to new (mass/mass less) particle as a photon or quark?
At CERN our scientists have built the biggest transformations in the planet.
Those ultra big transformations generate ultra high EM field.
So, why this facility can't generate a stream of new particles?
That shows that even if we have ultra high EM field/energy that can set ultra high force on a particle that is running in the loop, it can't generate new particles (mass or mass less).

So it's time for you to understand that the BBT pure energy can't be converted to any mass or mass less particles as Photons, quarks, Atom and so on.

In any case, you actually have even failed to show how the BBT' pure energy could represent EM energy which is needed for the photon.
You also have failed to show how the energy had been converted to all the Photons/ quarks/ particles in the entire universe in less than 10^-6 sec.

I have offered 8 key stages why the BBT is useless.
The BBT had failed already at the first stage.

Even a single photon creation is too difficult for the BBT
1. Photon creation
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 19:26:55
as I pointed out before, that energy is - at least in part, in the form of EM energy and that- whether you like it or not- means photons.
Congratulation!
Finely, you do understand that without EM energy there will be no photon No Atom nucleus and no any kind of matter!
So, let's agree that without EM energy a photon wouldn't be created!
You have just confirmed that EM energy is needed for a Photon.
I hope that you also agree that the BBT' pure energy in an infinite small space while there are no other kind of matter/magnets/dynamo can't represent EM radiation.
Actually, you totally ignore the article from our scientists about the new particle pair creation.
Any particle creation in the Universe must obey to that explanation.
As the BBT doesn't fulfill the requirements for new created particles pair (as explained in that article) - it can't generate even one particle and can't cross the first stage in my explanation.

And we are here
So something delivered that energy.
Why look at that as a problem?
We are here, but clearly not due to the BBT.
Once we agree on that - we can look for better understanding how we have got the total energy in our Universe.

So, please take a break and set the BBT in the garbage.

If you still refuse to abandon the BBT, then please start by answering how you convert the pure BBT' energy to EM energy  while there is no matter/magnet/dynamo in that infinite small universe, and then cross all the 8 stages - step by step.

Good Luck!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2020 15:54:09
Thanks for highlighting the next thing you need to learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_vs._rest_mass
However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference.

So, once you understand that "massless" particles have mass, you might make some progress towards learning science.
The BBT had failed already at the first stage.
The BBT worked just fine.
Your understanding failed- as usual.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/12/2020 05:43:48
Thanks for highlighting the next thing you need to learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_vs._rest_mass
However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference.

So, once you understand that "massless" particles have mass, you might make some progress towards learning science.
Why don't you copy the whole explanation?
"A so-called massless particle (such as a photon, or a theoretical graviton) moves at the speed of light in every frame of reference. In this case there is no transformation that will bring the particle to rest. The total energy of such particles becomes smaller and smaller in frames which move faster and faster in the same direction. As such, they have no rest mass, because they can never be measured in a frame where they are at rest. This property of having no rest mass is what causes these particles to be termed "massless". However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference."

In any case, even if we consider the Photon as massless particles which have a relativistic mass, it doesn't prove that energy has mass.

So let me ask you for the last time.
As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass then why the energy today isn't mass?
Would you kindly explain how any kind of energy today as Kinetic energy, potential energy, Heat energy, Atomic energy or even Gravity energy should be considered as mass energy or real particles.
Please - not converting massless particale to mass particle, but creating new particles out of ONLY pure energy (without any nearby Atom BH or any kind or real matter- only pure energy)?

Actually, I really wonder why our BBT scientists can't just change the BBT theory.
Instead of claiming for "Pure Energy" due to the Big Bang, why don't they claim for new mass/mass less particles?
So, why they don't claim for particles energy instead of pure energy?
Could it be that the Big Bang could only deliver pure energy without any sort of mass - and then in order to support that BBT imagination they ask you to claim that energy means mass?
It is their theory.
Technically they could even claim that the BIG BANG forms a star system with its planet or even a full size spiral galaxy by its first bang.
They could also claim that each galaxy had been created by a single bang.
So, again - why our scientists insist for "Pure energy"
Why they don't call it infinite "energy particles" (mass or mass less) from the first moment of the bang (or even atoms) and save you?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/12/2020 05:24:06
Dear Halc, Kryptid, Evan_au, Mitko Gorgiev and any other that read this thread

Do you confirm that BC has a fatal error in his following statement?
Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.

Do you confirm that energy doesn't always mean mass (especially if there is no mass to start with)?
Do you also confirm that there must be a fatal error in the BBT as it can't cross the 8 stages which I have offered?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2020 12:33:49
Why don't you copy the whole explanation?
Because it didn't make any difference; it was irrelevant.
So let me ask you for the last time.
I'm betting it isn't...
As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass then why the energy today isn't mass?

Again, you are refusing to think about what I actually said, an thus you are attributing beliefs to me that I do not hold.

"As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass"
I don't believe that it IS mass, I believe that it HAS mass

Once again.

My coffee does not have to be "converted to brown". It is brown.
Energy doesn't have to BE mas , it HAS mass.
Do you understand that difference?

Would you kindly explain how any kind of energy today as Kinetic energy, potential energy, Heat energy, Atomic energy or even Gravity energy should be considered as mass energy or real particles.
If I get a rock, and heat it up, it gains mass.
The effect is small, but real.
Energy really does have mass.
It does happen "today" so your question is meaningless.

Instead of claiming for "Pure Energy"
They don't.

Find a scientific publication (Not some bit of pop-science writing) where a scientist (not a journalist) actually says that, or accept that you are setting up a straw man.

Could it be that the Big Bang could only deliver pure energy without any sort of mass
No.
Because, whether you like it or not, energy has mass.

So, again - why our scientists insist for "Pure energy"
It's not clear that they did.
You would need to show an example (in a real science paper, not a newspaper).
Why they don't call it infinite "energy particles"
Because it would be redundant, or wrong, depending on what you mean by "particle".
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/12/2020 19:26:19
If I get a rock, and heat it up, it gains mass.
The effect is small, but real.
Energy really does have mass.
It does happen "today" so your question is meaningless.
Well, if you heat a rock it won't add even one more particle/quark to the rock.
This rock would surely be heavier due to the heat; however, as it cools back it will get to the same starting weight.
So, the heat energy doesn't add even one new particle/quark to the available matter and as it cools down the impact of the heat energy would be ZERO.
whether you like it or not, energy has mass.
Whether you like it or not, energy could have some temporary impact on the available/current matter/mass but it doesn't add even one new quark.
You can try to heat the empty space with ultra high energy/temp and won't find there even one new particle due to that heat.
Conclusion -
The assumption that the BBT energy has mass and due to that mass it has particles/quarks for the whole universe is absolutely incorrect.
The BBT energy has not even one quark.
Without the quarks - the BBT is not relevant.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2020 19:51:28
I guess it's progress that you now accept that energy has mass.
Now, do you remember that  you were saying that energy couldn't make new particles without mass?

Well, now we have the energy and the mass so we can make particles.

I forgot to mention that I got the rock very hot.
Much hotter than rocks usually get- in fact I got it as hot as the starting conditions of the universe.

At that sort of temperature, it's producing photons that are big enough to undergo pair production and make particles.

It's possible, you see.
It's just that you forgot how.

It really would be better if you learned some science.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/12/2020 19:30:01
I guess it's progress that you now accept that energy has mass.
Now, do you remember that  you were saying that energy couldn't make new particles without mass?
Well, now we have the energy and the mass so we can make particles.
I forgot to mention that I got the rock very hot.
Much hotter than rocks usually get- in fact I got it as hot as the starting conditions of the universe.
At that sort of temperature, it's producing photons that are big enough to undergo pair production and make particles.
It's possible, you see.
It's just that you forgot how.
It really would be better if you learned some science.

What a nonsense.
When you heat an object its mass increases due to (pc).
The complete equation is:
E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2
And from this equation if a system has zero momentum (p=0), then it has energy E=mc^2
When you heat an object the molecules or atoms begin to vibrate, rotate with more kinetic energy. But this doesn't increase the momentum of the system (the object is a system of many particles). Though the kinetic energy of the particles that make the system increases, the system is at rest (when you heat the object the object doesn't start moving). Hence, from the equation I wrote above the energy you provide get added as mass of object.

However, not even one quark is added due to that heat energy.

Don't you understand that you have lost the game long time ago?
Why do you keep with your pathetic approach?

It really would be better if you learned some science.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 28/12/2020 11:02:39
Quote from: Halc
It's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around.
What happened to "Every Action has an equal and opposite Reaction"?

If "positive mass is repelled by negative mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
Then "negative mass must also be repelled by positive mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
...which violates the quoted assertion about "not the other way around".

In reality, while we have firm evidence for antimatter, we do not (as yet) have firm evidence for negative mass.
- The common expectation amongst Physicists seems to be that an antimatter particle has exactly the same mass as it's matter counterpart (ie positive mass)
- One way of seeing this is through E=mc2
- It is known that a matter particle and its antimatter counterpart have exactly the same energy E (which is positive)
- The speed of light c is positive, as is c2
- The mass of a particle or its antimatter counterpart is E/c2 = +/+, which is > 0
- But the current experiments at the LHC will confirm or disprove this expectation.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/12/2020 12:49:32
Don't you understand that you have lost the game long time ago?
Why do you keep with your pathetic approach?
I was going to ask you the same question.

Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you but they broadly agree with me?

Anyway~
What you seem to be saying is that the mass of the electrons rises because they move faster when hotter.
But the mass of the whole object- including the electrons does not rise.

How is that possible?
The mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its components.
If you had learned some science, you would know that.

BTW, you aren't allowed to use a negative mass to balance things.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 28/12/2020 13:34:10
Quote from: Halc
It's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around.
What happened to "Every Action has an equal and opposite Reaction"?
It's alive and well.  For any momentum given to the positive mass, there is equal and opposite momentum added to the negative mass.  Force in one direction on one and in the opposite direction on the other. Momentum is conserved.

Quote
If "positive mass is repelled by negative mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
Then "negative mass must also be repelled by positive mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
...which violates the quoted assertion about "not the other way around".
That was admittedly worded ambiguously. I said that positive mass is repelled by negative mass. Force is equal and opposite, so in terms of force, both masses are 'repelled' by the other, but a force to the east on a negative mass will cause acceleration to the west, which is what I meant by 'not the other way around'.  It is this fact that seems to contradict what the LHC guys are looking for since they seem to expect antimatter (somehow slowed down so they can watch it long enough) to accelerate upward.

Quote
In reality, while we have firm evidence for antimatter, we do not (as yet) have firm evidence for negative mass.

- The common expectation amongst Physicists seems to be that an antimatter particle has exactly the same mass as it's matter counterpart (ie positive mass)
I seriously doubt that antimatter has negative mass, else there'd be asymmetric behavior between normal matter and antimatter (the one chasing the other). On the other hand there is negative gravitational potential (a function of mass density) which very much does repel normal matter. There's the Dipole Repeller which is vaguely in the opposite direction from the Great Attractor and the far more massive Shapley Attractor. Objects on the far side (upper right) of the Dipole Repeller are accelerated away (right and up) from it all despite the mass of all those attractors pulling things to the left.
Red dot in center with yellow velocity vector is us.
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/cosmic_void_dipole_repeller_480px-736x490-c-default.jpg)
I can't find a higher-res image of that, but the colored areas are basically a topo-map of perhaps relative mass density or gravitational potential depth (whatever 'PN' units are) with Shapley being around +1000 and Dipole repeller being around -700 in the center. These are relative numbers, so the '0' can be assigned anywhere, but the repulsion is very much real.

Quote
- The speed of light c is positive, as is c2
Yes, but c is just a magnitude, not a vector, so not sure about this argument. But I agree about the bit where matter/antimatter collision produces positive energy. It would cancel to nothing (as it does with virtual particle pairs) if antimatter had negative energy/mass. So not sure why the scientists are possibly expecting something else.

What if they do observe it accelerating 'upward'? That would mean that antimatter has the positive mass and all the normal matter that we know has negative mass. It means we're the antimatter. That would shake things up, no?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 16:12:52
What you seem to be saying is that the mass of the electrons rises because they move faster when hotter.
But the mass of the whole object- including the electrons does not rise.
How is that possible?
The mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its components.
If you had learned some science, you would know that.

I have found excelent explanation for you from Karen Ng, studied Physics Answered March 8, 2013:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold

"The people who have answered the question before me are correct in their reasoning but they can use the more explicit expression of:
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√

So, there are two kinds of mass:
Mequivalent and Mrest

If p=0
Mequivalent = Mrest

In any case, the idea that the rock would be heavier due to higher temp is based ONLY on its p.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.

So again - higher temp doesn't add even one particle/quark.
If you still wish to believe that this is feasible - then please introduce article/calculation to support this imagination.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/12/2020 16:45:50
So, there are two kinds of mass:
Yes, I know.
And any mass will do as a way to conserve momentum during pair production.


In any case, the idea that the rock would be heavier due to higher temp is based ONLY on its p.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.
Your lack of understanding is beside the point; the mass still increases with temperature.

If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.
If you ignore reality, you can get any answer you want, but you are not doing science.
please introduce article/calculation
E = MC2
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 17:15:14
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:52
Please introduce article/calculation
E = MC2
How do you get the understanding that the mass should increase due to higher temp?
Where do you see the extra mass due to the overheating energy?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/12/2020 17:44:11
Why do you think there is a difference?
A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.
The same is true of fast moving electrons.
In a material, part of the thermal energy is present as the velocity of the electros.
If the temperature is high then the velocities are high.
And, if the velocities are high the mass increases.

So why would a material containing fast (i.e. hot) electrons not have more mass?

It's all beside the point, all energy has mass and that's all it takes to allow pair production.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:30:01
Don't you understand that you have lost the game long time ago?
Why do you keep with your pathetic approach?
I was going to ask you the same question.

Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you but they broadly agree with me?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 19:44:20
A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.
Clearly to whom? To you?
Do you have any backup for that from CERN?
E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves faster or gets higher temp.

Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you but they broadly agree with me?
So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/12/2020 00:09:55
Do you have any backup for that from CERN?
It's not a secret.
Don't you  think they would have said if they had shown that relativity was wrong?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/12/2020 00:12:13
So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.
As you noticed, the only problem with pair production is balancing the momentum.
Any mass will let you do that,

I don't have to "prove" basic physics. The problem is that you refuse to learn it.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/12/2020 05:45:25
So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.
As you noticed, the only problem with pair production is balancing the momentum.
Any mass will let you do that,
I don't have to "prove" basic physics. The problem is that you refuse to learn it.

How long are you going to ignore real science???
You have offered an article about the pair production.
In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.
As based on the BBT, there were no atom and no BH immediately after the Bang, then it is very clear that not even one quark could be created due to the pure energy, heat energy or any source of energy that you dream.
So, as long as you (or any other one) can't offer an article that could CLEARLY explain how the quarks had been created after the bang from any sort of energy while there is no nearby Atom or BH, we should all agree that this idea is the biggest nonsense of the modern science.
ONLY real article please. Without it, don't even try to reply.
I have no intention to waste my time on your nonsense.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 29/12/2020 07:57:14
Quote from: Dave Lev
A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.
Clearly to whom? To you?
This has been known for a long time. The most powerful accelerators in the 1940s & 1950s were cyclotrons.
- The main problem with these is that as the particles approach the speed of light, their mass increases.
- To keep accelerating the particles despite their increased mass, the Synchrocyclotron reduced the frequency of the AC voltage.
- You can see the experience (and equations) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrocyclotron

In the history section, you can see that this design was the basis for CERN's first accelerator, in 1952.

Quote
E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves faster
No, but the factor mγ in the above equations does.
- This mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds
- But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/12/2020 16:29:27
Quote
Quote
E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves faster
No, but the factor mγ in the above equations does.
- This mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds
- But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c
.
The mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds - that is correct
But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c- that is also correct.
However, it is due to (p).
I have already explained this issue:

I have found excelent explanation for you from Karen Ng, studied Physics Answered March 8, 2013:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold
"The people who have answered the question before me are correct in their reasoning but they can use the more explicit expression of:
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√

So, there are two kinds of mass:
Mequivalent and Mrest

If p=0
Mequivalent = Mrest

In any case, the idea that the rock would be heavier due to higher temp is based ONLY on its p.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.
So again - higher temp doesn't add even one particle/quark.
So it is all about the mass at rest VS equivalent mass (Mequivalent) due to p.
Therefore, as the particle speed approaches c, the p increases and therefore its Mequivalent increases.
It is very clear that as the particle speed approaches Zero again, the p also would be zero and therefore its Mequivalent would be back to M rest.
Hence, there is no new particle creation in that process.
Not even a single quark.
Is it clear to you by now?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/12/2020 17:02:16
I have already explained this issue:
Everyone here already knew that.
Why did you waste time saying it?
In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.
And it said why
In normal circumstances the only way to have a mass involved (and thus to balance the momenta) is to have an atom or something nearby.
But, in the very early universe, there is enough mass (as it happens, the entire mass of the universe) nearby.
And that makes pair production possible.


can't offer an article that could CLEARLY explain
That's absurd.
I have offered the explanation.
You just keep ignoring it.

You do not need an atom, or a BH.
What you need is mass.
And there is plenty of that- the whole mass of the universe.


we should all agree that this idea is the biggest nonsense of the modern science.
No we shouldn't.
Because that's wrong.

I have no intention to waste my time on your nonsense.
And again; it's the D K syndrome.
You think you are right an everyone else in the world is wrong.
How likely is that?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/12/2020 18:27:18
Happy new Year to all.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/01/2021 09:57:16
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 29/12/2020 05:45:25
In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.
And it said why
In normal circumstances the only way to have a mass involved (and thus to balance the momenta) is to have an atom or something nearby.

Thanks
So you fully confirm that "In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or something nearby."

I really appreciate this confirmation.
However, what is the meaning of "something nearby".
You have just confirmed that this "something nearby" MUST be Atom or BH.
However, how mass by itself could be considered as "something nearby"?
So, without massive "something nearby" as Atom or BH, there is no way for the pair production process to work – as stated in the article.
You claim:
But, in the very early universe, there is enough mass (as it happens, the entire mass of the universe) nearby.
And that makes pair production possible.
As you claim that energy means mass, then you have to show how "enough Mass" can force other nearby similar enough mass to be transformed into pair production while there is no nearby massive mass as Atom or BH. 

Sorry, based on the article which you have confirmed - mass by itself isn't good enough for "something nearby" in order to set the pair production.
Hence, you must first show how that "enough mass" had been transformed into "something nearby"" as Atom & BH as they are vital for the pair production process.
So, even if there was enough mass after the Big bang, that mass must first transformed into a BH or Atom and only then the pair production could start..
Without it - the BBT is useless.

Please also be aware that the pair production is actually a random activity.
Therefore, it takes time to set high production/transformation of pair particles.
Therefore, don't you agree that there is way to generate the entire particles (which is needed for the whole universe) in only 10^-6 sec.
So, also by that argument we should set the BBT in the garbage.

Let's go back to your following statement: "in the very early universe, there enough mass to form was mass nearby?
How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough mass to form the nearby mass?
You claim that the answer is: "as it happens, the entire mass of the universe"
Sorry, the idea that it happens does not prove that it happens due to the BBT?
Don't you agree that if we can find better theory then it might "happens" also due to the other theory?

In any case, do you also confirm that if we can prove that there is no mass in energy then you personally are going to set the BBT in the garbage?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/01/2021 11:36:24
You have just confirmed that this "something nearby" MUST be Atom or BH.
No
I have not. Please do not tell lies like that; it makes you look silly.
I keep making it clear that the article is inaccurate because it ignores the conditions present in the early universe.

You need an atom or a BH or something.

Do you understand why?
If you knew why you needed a third body then you would recognise that it only needs mass.

You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.
You just need something with mass.

Do you accept this simple fact?
If not there's very little chance of you understanding much else, so you might as well give up.


Sorry, based on the article which you have confirmed
This "confirmation" is an hallucination of yours; it isn't real so you can't base anything on it.


you have to show how "enough Mass" can force other
No That's also wrong.
I have to show that it can allow  pair production; not "force" it.
That's just some nonsense you made up. It really would be better if you stopped making up nonsense like that.


How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough mass
Do you realise what you are saying?
The mass of an atom is large enough to enable pair production.
But you do not accept that the mass of the entire universe is large enough.

Once again, your lack of understanding just makes you look stupid. Why don't you learn some science?
Therefore, don't you agree that there is way to generate the entire particles (which is needed for the whole universe) in only 10^-6 sec.
Yes. a microsecond is plenty of time.
We know this because the universe is here.
In any case, do you also confirm that if we can prove that there is no mass in energy then you personally are going to set the BBT in the garbage?
Do you not realise that's like saying "if we can prove that black is white...".
You can't prove something if it is not true.
We know that energy has mass- we have measured it.
If you learned science, you would know that.

How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough mass to form the nearby mass?
Again, you think an atom is enough mass, but the Universe is not enough mass.
How stupid is that idea?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: puppypower on 02/01/2021 12:05:01
There is a slight tweak that can be added to the BBT that can resolve the particle pair problem as well as the early galaxy and star formation problems. If we start with the primordial atom of the BB and expand that singularity into umpteen particles, there would be a huge increase in entropy. This would be very endothermic and would quickly cool the universe. This may explain why the inflation period is very short.

Another way to expand the universe, in a way that generates less entropy, so the universe can remain hotter, longer, is for the primordial atom to simply split into two like a mother cell into two daughter cells. The daughter cells then split, etc., etc. See image below.

In this scenario the increase in entropy will be smaller and more piece meal, with the forming smaller daughter cells lowering energy and increasing entropy each cycle. This dividing process will also cause universal reference to appear to expand relative to each other. Less energy per daughter cell, each cycle, means less contraction of space-time around each cell. One will see the universe appear to expand. This could also be the inflation period.

Where this is heading are the lowest level daughter cells, from which the galaxies will expand like popcorn. The terminal mini daughter cell singularities would be very similar to black holes, and these would become the nucleation centers would allow for pair production. The pair production and equilibrium annihilation process, will lead to a big boom expansion, relative to the galaxies.

As the galaxies expand, there will be powerful energy wave fronts coming in from all directions from the other expanding galaxies; background radiation. This keeps most of the expanding galaxies contained in space, as well as creates eddies for early star formation. It also causes the universe to forever expand relative to the galaxies. The central black holes found in many modern galaxies are remnants of this early event.

(https://previews.123rf.com/images/frenta/frenta1504/frenta150400015/39001828-process-division-of-cell-isolated-on-black-background.jpg)
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/01/2021 12:11:11
the primordial atom to simply split into two l
What could the dividing wall be made from?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/01/2021 05:05:53
You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.
You just need something with mass.
Do you accept this simple fact?

What a nonsense!!!

1. "something with mass"
What do you mean by "something with mass"?
We have already found that energy can increase the mass of existing matter.
So, by heating a rock or metal bar we can increase their mass.
However, There is no evidence that energy can set "something with mass" while there is no matter at all.
So please offer an article that could backup your nonsense that energy means "something with mass" while there is nothing (not any sort of matter as rock, metal, photon, boson...just nothing!!!)?

2. "simple fact"
Let's assume that there is "something with mass".
However, we all agree that this nonsense that is called "something with mass" is clearly not Atom or BH.
So, can you please backup the nonsense that "something with mass" which is clearly not Atom or BH could set the pair production (without photon or boson) by relevant Article?

Please - backup each nonsense by real article.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/01/2021 09:56:54
What do you mean by "something with mass"?
I mean something with mass.
Which word is giving you difficulty.
For example, energy has mass.
A sufficiently high energy ensemble of photons would do the job.

What a nonsense!!!
This whole tread is full of nonsense.
That's because you keep posting it.

There is no evidence that energy can set "something with mass"
The word "set" makes no sense in that context.
But we do have evidence that photons have mass.
They carry momentum and are affected by gravity.

So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.

It is nonsense to try to say otherwise.

It is particularly stupid to try to say that photons don't habe mass after you posted that they  do.

E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√

The Mequivalent is the mass that enables particle production.
Why are you now saying that it doesn't exist?


If you understood high-school physics you wouldn't be asking me to explain why the mass is needed and why it can be essentially anything with mass.
Since you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you are wrong about, here's the wiki entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: puppypower on 06/01/2021 14:14:04
the primordial atom to simply split into two l
What could the dividing wall be made from?

The dividing wall is the speed of light reference, since this is where the continuity with inertial reference and matter breaks down. With the primordial atom, this c-boundary wall is very close and constraining and all that exist beyond the primordial atom, is within the c-reference. This references obeys different sets of rules, such as space-time dissociated to separated time and separated space.

Photons travel at the speed of light, however, they also show finite inertial characteristics such as wavelength; distance, frequency; time and mass/energy equivalent. Photons are partially in inertial reference and not exclusively in the speed of light reference. Photons are like a bridge between the c-refeence and the inertia based primordial atom; inertial scaffolding at the boundary.

The speed of light reference, proper, would make photons appear to be uniform, rather than distinct and variable, like the photons we observe in inertial references. For the finite inertial leg of photon to appear; first photons, they need to get past the c-boundary into the primordial atom; move along the bridge scaffolding.

The split into two daughter cells is increasing the surface area of the boundary with the speed of light reference. This split and increasing surface area causes the references within the daughter cells to appear to expand in space-time; universe appears to expand. The splitting is heading away from the speed of light reference, by virtue of the increasing surface area and the expanding inertial boundary.

In other places, I have tried to show that the speed of light reference, proper, is the ground state of the universe. We need to increase the potential with the ground state to create inertial. What make this harder to see, is the lack of anti-matter in the universe. If we had matter and anti-matter these would lower potential by annihilating and becoming energy/photons. If we remove the anti-matter and have just matter, we still have a potential, but no easy way to lower it. W need to lower potential in a more round-about way using the forces of nature instead of direct annihilation into the energy bridge,

The increasing surface area, implicit of the BB cellular division, is adding inertial potential to the universe. Like with living cells, cell division adds the potential to double the growth in terms of  mass and energy. The splitting phases defines how large the universe will be. The number of divisions equals the final inertial potential with the c-reference; universe size. Like with biological cells, the BB cells are triggered to split when they accumulate sufficient energy, in the guise of energy bridge.

The current BBT theory cannot address how the primordial atom came to be. This earlier than the BB knowledge, has an impact on the rest of the theory, even if the BBT appears consistent with other observations. As an analogy, say you met new person and you know nothing of their past. Rather, you size them up based on today and going forward. Based on this short term reference, there is no way of telling whether their trajectory in life was set, before you met. Do they laugh at your jokes because you are funny, or because they have always been polite? If you are too ego-centric you may guess wrong.

 If you assume the wrong premiss this will lead to problems that will start to appear in other other observations, such as the galaxy problem. These problems may have an explanation that is consistent with things that happened before the primordial atom. The cell division analogy fixes the galaxy problem.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: puppypower on 06/01/2021 15:07:28
I was getting long, so I though it best to split this up. Let me address the final split. In this model, the final split will lead to the expanding galaxy phase, leading to the universe expanding relative to the galaxies.

In this model, we are adding potential from the c-reference, to drive each split. This is like the mother cell in biology accumulating food energy to help trigger and supply the needed energy for cell division. What would happen if we stopped adding potential to the last generation of daughter cells? This would indicate the universe is big enough for now. There is a pause and now the final daughter cells will need to lower potential and return back to the c-reference. Reversal by merging backwards; two daughter cells become a single mother cell, does not appear to be an option, since observational data says there was an expansion instead of contraction.

The daughter cells are on their own, to lower potential. In the case of biological cells, where the food supply is cut off just before cell division, the DNA might still double as existing stored energy is used up, but it may not divide into two daughter cells. Instead you would get a larger daughter cell, sometimes with double DNA, where her lowering energy stockpile is transformed into making cellular materials for her expansion; synthesis. This is a round-about way to lower potential. I like the imagery of a mini BB explosion and expansion. This synthesis phase creates the interface for matter and anti-matter .

Our universe appears to be expanding in all direction from any given point. What they tells me, relative to this discussion, references stack at each point in space and time. All energy and matter is still constrained in space and time by the c-reference. When an atom gives off a photon, this happens is zero time which comes from the c-reference.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/01/2021 17:00:16
I was getting long, so I though it best to split this up.
It would be better to put it in a separate thread.
Given that you start with this nonsense
"The dividing wall is the speed of light reference"
it should be in the "That CAN'T be true" section.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/01/2021 17:59:21
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:05:53
What do you mean by "something with mass"?
I mean something with mass.
Which word is giving you difficulty.
For example, energy has mass.
A sufficiently high energy ensemble of photons would do the job.
How long are you going to keep your nonsense and ignore the reality?
If it was stated that the Big Bang is coming with at least some photons or bosons then we could agree that there was mass.
However, based on the BBT, the Big Bang didn't bring with it any sort of matter, object, particale, photon or Boson.
Only Energy (or Pure energy- based on wiki)
As you clearly don't like wiki, then please show other article which could support your imagination.
Without it, you have to accept the idea that energy by itself without any sort of matter or object has no mass.
We get one more approval for that from the article which you have just offered:
If you understood high-school physics you wouldn't be asking me to explain why the mass is needed and why it can be essentially anything with mass.
Since you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you are wrong about, here's the wiki entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object."
Unfortunately for you, based on the BBT the Big Bang itself didn't bring with it any sort of object, matter, photon or boson.
So, let's agree that so far you have totally failed to show any article which could confirm that energy without object or matter means mass.
Therefore, would you kindly keep the BBT at the garbage as long as you can't show that the BBT "pure" energy means mass.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/01/2021 18:37:07
This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:
And in this wiki article, the object is a photon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

Did you think you had a point?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/01/2021 06:53:19
This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:
And in this wiki article, the object is a photon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

Did you think you had a point?
Why do you keep pushing the photon idea while based on the BBT theory there were no Photons or any sort of Bosons during the Big Bang?
Did you think you had a point?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/01/2021 08:30:52
there were no Photons
We know that energy is quantised.
Whether the energy was present as photons, or mesons or what is beside the point.

If it wasn't in the form of some sort of quanta, what form do you think it was in.

Unless you can answer that sensibly, you can not claim that...

there were no Photons or any sort of Bosons during the Big Bang?
Your claim is at odds with our observations of the universe.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/01/2021 15:27:28
We know that energy is quantised.
Whether the energy was present as photons, or mesons or what is beside the point.
Wow
For the last several messages you have pushed the Photon idea while you clearly knew that the Big Bang can't generate any sort of Photon or boson.
Now you offer a twist in the BBT story.
You call it "quantized energy".
That is excellent progress for you. I have to congratulate you for your final understanding that energy must be quantized in order to carry mass.
So, I hope that you do understand that energy (or pure energy) has no mass. It must be "quantized" in order to carry mass.

Therefore, finely we agree on something:
"Quantized energy" has mass, while energy or "pure energy" has no mass!!!
Good luck for you!

So we all agree that that Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons and any sort of Particle are all quantized energy?
However, based on the data that was available for me, the BBT doesn't claim for any sort of quantized energy at the Big Bang.

Therefore:
Would you kindly offer an article that could backup your imagination that the BBT "pure energy" is actually "quantized energy"?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/01/2021 17:18:14
Therefore, finely we agree on something:
"Quantized energy" has mass, while energy or "pure energy" has no mass!!!
No
We know that all energy is quantized so what you should say is
""Quantized energy" has mass, while  " any other sort of energy" does not exist."
Would you kindly offer an article that could backup your imagination that the BBT "pure energy" is actually "quantized energy"?
You have got it the wrong way round.
We know that energy is quantized. Every single experiment and observation is consistent with this. It's as near to being a fact as you get in physics.
If you want to claim that it wasn't, you need to prove that.

Go on...
Show us some energy that's not quantised...

For the last several messages you have pushed the Photon idea while you clearly knew that the Big Bang can't generate any sort of Photon or boson.
No
You forgot to read and think about what I said.
It doesn't matter if the energy is present as photons or mesons.
Because it is present in some quantized form anyway.

I'm was just trying to stop you leading off down another exercise in stupidity where you say "but all the 4 forces were (probably) merged at that point."
Well, yes they were, and it doesn't matter.
Therefore, finely we agree on something:
"Quantized energy" has mass,
And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).
So all energy has mass.
So there's mass there at the start of the universe, and that mass is all that's needed to keep the momentum conserved during pair production, so there will be pair production.
So there will be particles.
So the universe can exist.

It's remarkable that you have been trying to show that the universe is not here.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 20:14:44
Bored Chemist, in the post above,  said: "Show us some energy that is not quantised"

Which invites the obvious reply: "Gravitational Energy" !   Is there any evidence that gravitational energy is quantised.   If it was,  the energy would  manifest itself in the form of gravity "particles" or  - "gravitons"

Have these "gravitons"  been detected in any of our particle detectors such as the LHC? 

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: syhprum on 08/01/2021 21:04:22
Graviton "particles" are extremely weak much weaker than Neutrino's there is no possibility to detect indivisible ones only their effect en mass.   
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 21:24:10
Graviton "particles" are extremely weak much weaker than Neutrino's there is no possibility to detect indivisible ones only their effect en mass.

Thanks syphrum.  I take your point that gravitons may be individually extremely weak, and therefore only detectable "en masse", as you say.

Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 08/01/2021 22:22:12
Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?
Perhaps so, but it is hard to imagine any system with such fine sensitivity, so not any time soon. Unlike neutrinos which have a tiny but finite probability of collision, gravitons don't collide with anything, so it's not like its going to leave a spot on a detector plate or something.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 22:52:10
Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?
Perhaps so, but it is hard to imagine any system with such fine sensitivity, so not any time soon. Unlike neutrinos which have a tiny but finite probability of collision, gravitons don't collide with anything, so it's not like its going to leave a spot on a detector plate or something.

Is the basic difficulty with detecting  "gravitons" this -  any apparatus set up to detect them, will itself contain "gravitons".

Therefore there will be a problem distinguishing "gravitons" within the apparatus, from external  "gravitons"  produced by external sources.

Could this problem be resolved, perhaps by magnetic fields?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Halc on 09/01/2021 02:22:57
Is the basic difficulty with detecting  "gravitons" this -  any apparatus set up to detect them, will itself contain "gravitons".
Gravitons move at light speed and are not 'contained' by or 'within' anything except perhaps a black hole. I also see no particular reason why a given apparatus (LIGO say) need emit gravitons, except for the apparatus being part of Earth which emits gravitons at a rate of about 200 watts, a fraction of the energy used to run my blender.

And no, LIGO cannot detect Earth's gravitons despite its proximity to their origin.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/01/2021 12:19:50
Bored Chemist, in the post above,  said: "Show us some energy that is not quantised"

Which invites the obvious reply: "Gravitational Energy" ! 
OK, Show that it is not quantised.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/01/2021 16:04:12
And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).
So all energy has mass
Energy isn't quantized.
Yes, I can prove it:
Our current universe is full with mass and full with energy.
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.
Surprisingly, based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass. Hawking told us that for each new created particle with positive Energy, Antiparticle with negative energy should be created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole)."
Due to Einstein formula:
E = m c^2
So, in order to get a negative energy, the mass must be negative.
That by itself is unrealistic.
So, today, with all the available Positive energy/matter and mass - our scientists don't even consider that the energy is quantized.
However, when it comes to the BBT, Somehow at the Big bang moment, while there was no mass or matter and even no space (or when the space was infinite small), the whole energy of our current entire Universe was quantized in that infinite small early universe space.
We know that based on QM each quark or particle must have some minimal space size.
I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.
So, how could it be that the energy of the early universe had immediately quantized in order to set the entire Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons, particles for our current entire universe (even if it is infinite) while the whole space of the early universe was still infinite small (in the size of proton)?
That idea is a direct contradiction QM.
Therefore, the assumption that the early Universe got all its particles while it was infinite small is a pure imagination as technically there was not enough room for all the particles, quarks in that infinite small size.
This is one aspect.
From the other hand we clearly know that there is no gravity force without mass and there is no potential energy or kinetic energy without mass.
We have already found that heat energy can increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add any new matter.
Therefore, the assumption that energy has mass is also absolutely incorrect
So all energy has mass.
As energy without mass is useless.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
At the maximum, we have found that heat energy can temporarily increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add even one extra quark to that matter as after cooling you get back the same mass (some even claim that the left over is less due to the radiation - but this isn't the main discussion).
So, even if you have existing matter, the heat energy does not add even one quark to that matter.
Therefore, energy without matter is useless as energy can only exist while there is matter.
So there's mass there at the start of the universe, and that mass is all that's needed to keep the momentum conserved during pair production, so there will be pair production.
Well, that is unrealistic.
Please see the following:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era. While we have no way of knowing what this era was like from the equations of physics (as they break down in this era), it is "assumed" to be as follows. The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently. The primal particles were packets of radiation unlike anything we know today. Also, the four primary forces of the universe as we know them today were believed to be one united force. The temperature of the universe was 1 x 10^32 degrees Celsius. This hot thick soup was intense and everywhere. It also began to instantaneously expand and cool extremely fast. "
They claim that "The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Sorry - matter and energy were not separated as they are currently as the whole universe was in the size of a proton.
Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.
Without quantized energy, there is no mass.
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe was at the size of proton.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/01/2021 16:06:58
And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).
So all energy has mass
Energy isn't quantized.
Yes, I can prove it:
Our current universe is full with mass and full with energy.
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.
Surprisingly, based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass. Hawking told us that for each new created particle with positive Energy, Antiparticle with negative energy should be created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole)."
Due to Einstein formula:
E = m c^2
So, in order to get a negative energy, the mass must be negative.
That by itself is unrealistic.
So, today, with all the available Positive energy/matter and mass - our scientists don't even consider that the energy is quantized.
However, when it comes to the BBT, Somehow at the Big bang moment, while there was no mass or matter and even no space (or when the space was infinite small), the whole energy of our current entire Universe was quantized in that infinite small early universe space.
We know that based on QM each quark or particle must have some minimal space size.
I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.
So, how could it be that the energy of the early universe had immediately quantized in order to set the entire Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons, particles for our current entire universe (even if it is infinite) while the whole space of the early universe was still infinite small (in the size of proton)?
That idea is a direct contradiction QM.
Therefore, the assumption that the early Universe got all its particles while it was infinite small is a pure imagination as technically there was not enough room for all the particles, quarks in that infinite small size.
This is one aspect.
From the other hand we clearly know that there is no gravity force without mass and there is no potential energy or kinetic energy without mass.
We have already found that heat energy can increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add any new matter.
Therefore, the assumption that energy has mass is also absolutely incorrect
So all energy has mass.
As energy without mass is useless.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
At the maximum, we have found that heat energy can temporarily increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add even one extra quark to that matter as after cooling you get back the same mass (some even claim that the left over is less due to the radiation - but this isn't the main discussion).
So, even if you have existing matter, the heat energy does not add even one quark to that matter.
Therefore, energy without matter is useless as energy can only exist while there is matter.
So there's mass there at the start of the universe, and that mass is all that's needed to keep the momentum conserved during pair production, so there will be pair production.
Well, that is unrealistic.
Please see the following:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era. While we have no way of knowing what this era was like from the equations of physics (as they break down in this era), it is "assumed" to be as follows. The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently. The primal particles were packets of radiation unlike anything we know today. Also, the four primary forces of the universe as we know them today were believed to be one united force. The temperature of the universe was 1 x 10^32 degrees Celsius. This hot thick soup was intense and everywhere. It also began to instantaneously expand and cool extremely fast. "
They claim that "The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Sorry - matter and energy were not separated as the whole universe was in the size of a proton.
Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.
Without quantized energy, there is no mass.
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe is a proton.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/01/2021 16:47:36
Energy isn't quantized.
Yes, I can prove it:

Go on then.
Prove it.

But don't start by saying things that are known to be wrong.
For example this  isn't true.
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.

And you contradict yourself here:
 You say

based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass.
And then you dismiss Hawking's:
That by itself is unrealistic.

Well, if it's not realistic, you can't use it to show anything.

Actually, you are simply wrong, it is realistic.

I already pointed out that the symmetry problem isn't solved, but it's also not solved for any explanation of the origin of the universe but, since we are here, it's obvious that there is a way round it.

So, most of your post is redundant and irrelevant.


So, today, with all the available Positive energy/matter and mass - our scientists don't even consider that the energy is quantized.
That's both a non sequitur, and also obviously false. Most scientists do think that stuff is quantised.

I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.
It's a pity that you don't seem to have understood it.

However, when it comes to the BBT, Somehow at the Big bang moment, while there was no mass or matter and even no space (or when the space was infinite small), the whole energy of our current entire Universe was quantized in that infinite small early universe space.
Not necessarily "at" that moment, it could have been slightly later when the universe had expanded a bit.
So the "it's not big enough" argument isn't valid. It's a straw man.




As energy without mass is useless.
Whether it's "useless" or not is a silly thing to discuss.
It's impossible.



You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
I have shown it, it's just that you didn't understand it.
If you get the matter hot enough then the collisions between ions will produce gamma rays of high enough energy to undergo pair production.


Well, that is unrealistic.
It's perfectly realistic.
If it wasn't the scientists wouldn't believe it.
You seem to be claiming to be the cleverest scientist in the world, even  though you plainly don't understand science.
That's insanity.



During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently.
And that compound/ mixture whatever you want to call it, had mass.
It had the whole mass of the universe.


Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.
Did you read that, and think about it?
QM is the behaviour of quantised things.

What you have said is that because of the behaviour of quantised things, things were not quantised.


Did you not realise how stupid that was?
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe is a proton.
No
As usual, you proved that you don't understand science.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/01/2021 10:02:55
Sorry if I was not clear enough in my message

So let me know if you confirm the following understanding:
A. General understanding:
1. There is a possibility to transform photon to particle pair by using the gravity of a nearby atom. However, a photon is needed for this transformation. In this case, the total energy in the photon will be equal to the total energy in the particle pair. Therefore, they both will have positive mass/energy
2. New particle pair creation: There is a possibility to create new particle pair out of pure energy by using the gravity & EM of the BH. In this case, there is no need for any sort of quark or photon.
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.

B. BBT understanding:

BBT energy at the planck era:
"http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era"
The BBT energy was concentrated at the first stage (10^-43 to 10^-38 of a sec) in only a proton size/space.

My questions are as follow:

1. As that total energy of the whole universe at the Big bang moment was locked at infinite small space (of a size of proton) how could the energy quantized and set almost infinite no of quarks/particles that are needed for the entire Universe without violating the QM?

2. When it comes to the current time:
We clearly see the activity around our SMBH and the impact of its ultra strong energy/EM.
Please be aware that based on the Hawking radiation theory, if there is an activity of new pair production, it must be based on one with positive energy and other with negative energy.

So, why during the BBT, both particle pair have got the positive BBT energy, while today the new particle pair around a SMBH must get ZERO energy (as the positive energy of one particle should be identical to the negative energy of the other one)?

Why at the Big bang moment there was a room for the energy quantized (as the whole space of the early universe was only at the size of a proton), while today, with all the unlimited space in our current Universe - new pair of particles with both positive mass/energy is impossible to be created around a SMBH/BH?


Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:06:58
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
I have shown it, it's just that you didn't understand it.
If you get the matter hot enough then the collisions between ions will produce gamma rays of high enough energy to undergo pair production.
Can you please offer article to support this understanding?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/01/2021 10:40:07
There is a possibility to transform photon to particle pair by using the gravity of a nearby atom. However, a photon is needed for this transformation.
Gravity isn't involved much, but mass is.
2. New particle pair creation: There is a possibility to create new particle pair out of pure energy by using the gravity
No
It's not gravity that does it.
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.
No
For example, there's no observed lower boundary to the size of an electron.


Do you see why I keep saying you should learn science?


Can you please offer article to support this understanding?
Why are you obsessed with articles?

It's simple straightforward physics.
As you heat things up, they emit larger amounts of radiation, and that radiation shifts to shorter wavelengths (and thus to higher energies).

If you heat it far enough, you start to get gamma rays with enough energy to undergo pair production.

No article is going to make that any more true.
As that total energy of the whole universe at the Big bang moment was locked at infinite small space (of a size of proton) how could the energy quantized and set almost infinite no of quarks/particles that are needed for the entire Universe without violating the QM?
Because doing that doesn't violate QM; it's just that you don't understand QM.

So, why during the BBT, both particle pair have got the positive BBT energy, while today the new particle pair around a SMBH must get ZERO energy (as the positive energy of one particle should be identical to the negative energy of the other one)?
As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a breakthrough in theoretical physics since I wrote this yesterday afternoon.
I already pointed out that the symmetry problem isn't solved,

The answer was "we don't know" and the answer is still "we don't know".

Why did you ask the question again?
Are you an idiot?
Do you just like looking stupid?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 10/01/2021 20:24:24
When Copernicus proposed his correct heliocentric theory of the Solar System, he got widely abused as:

"That idiot who wants to turn the whole of astronomy upside-down".

The thing is, you can never tell who's an idiot, and who isn't, until all the evidence is in.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/01/2021 20:41:09
The thing is, you can never tell who's an idiot, and who isn't, until all the evidence is in.
True, but if someone is trying to turn science on it's head, but hasn't actually got ANY evidence, (or indeed a decent understanding of how science works, you can be pretty sure he's the idiot, can't you?

Also, Copernicus was trying to solve an actual problem with the astronomy of his day- all those blasted epicycles.
Dave is trying to solve imaginary problems.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 10/01/2021 21:49:58

True, but if someone is trying to turn science on it's head, but hasn't actually got ANY evidence, (or indeed a decent understanding of how science works, you can be pretty sure he's the idiot, can't you?

Also, Copernicus was trying to solve an actual problem with the astronomy of his day- all those blasted epicycles.
Dave is trying to solve imaginary problems.

Well, that's what I mean.  When Copernicus put forward his heliocentric theory in the 16th century, it was in a sense, a solution to "an imaginary problem".

Planetary movements could be quite well accounted for by existing Aristotelian "Earth-centred" theory.  Based on those circular  "epicycles", which you point out.

The theory enabled future planetary phenomena, such as conjunctions, to be predicated with an acceptable degree of accuracy.  Given the lack of precise clocks, and the dependency on unaided human eyesight for measuring planetary positions.

There was thus no  practical "need" to replace the geocentric theory, by a heliocentric one.

Copernicus himself only did it, because he thought it provided a better "mathematical" solution.  He never challenged the Aristotelian concept of circular orbits  Only Kepler did that, a while later.  When he invoked "elliptical" orbits

The thing is, all this was theoretical wrangling.  It only became a matter of practical concern, with the invention of the telescope.  This device transformed astronomy.  In its simplest form, as used by Galileo, it's just two glass lenses in a tube.

Yet without it, we might still be arguing today, over whether the geocentric theory can be maintained - if we add more and tinier "epicycles" to refine it.  (Ironically, as you know, Galileo himself never accepted, or even perhaps knew about, Kepler's "elliptical" ideas.  Galileo always stuck to circles as the only conceivable form of celestial motion)

The point is this -  can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope.  Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?



Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/01/2021 22:51:50
The point is this -  can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope.  Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?
It's a work in progress.
But the point is that it works, whereas Dave's idea doesn't.
the BBT might be wrong, but it's not nearly as wrong as his "theory" which is impossible.

Yet he's claiming the BBT is impossible- simply because he can't understand how it works.
It would be like proposing  to replace the heliocentric  model with the assumption that the planets follow square paths.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/01/2021 00:18:45
When Copernicus put forward his heliocentric theory in the 16th century, it was in a sense, a solution to "an imaginary problem".

Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 11/01/2021 15:16:58


Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.

Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid!    Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist,  who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.

If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks,  and claim:

"I always said it was a good idea all along!"
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/01/2021 15:21:14


Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.

Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid!    Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist,  who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.

If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks,  and claim:

"I always said it was a good idea all along!"
No.
Even if  Dave's heap of errors, misunderstandings  and self contradictions somehow inspires someone to do science (and that seems unlikely...) it will not make a difference to the fact that he was wrong all along, will it?

Do you understand that it's not a matter of " as far as we know he is wrong", but a matter of " it was mathematically proven a hundred years ago that he is wrong"?
Do you understand the difference?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 11/01/2021 15:48:27
No.
Even if  Dave's heap of errors, misunderstandings  and self contradictions somehow inspires someone to do science (and that seems unlikely...) it will not make a difference to the fact that he was wrong all along, will it?

Do you understand that it's not a matter of " as far as we know he is wrong", but a matter of " it was mathematically proven a hundred years ago that he is wrong"?
Do you understand the difference?

Yes, I understand the difference.  But can we be sure that our "mathematics" isn't just a human invention - that doesn't necessarily apply to the way the Universe operates.

As an example:  2,000 years ago, Euclid proved that the angles of a triangle always add up to 180°.
And he was apparently right.  But he was drawing his triangles on a flat, 2-dimensional sheet of papyrus.

Whereas, the actual Universe is 3-dimensional.  Containing solid 3-dimensional objects such as spheres.
And if you draw a triangle on a sphere, don't its angles add up to more than 180°?

So Euclid's maths don't always work in the real, true, 3-D Universe.  Therefore, how can we regard maths as unchallengeable arbiters of truth?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/01/2021 18:14:45
A century or two before Euclid did lots of stuff about planes, Pythagoras proved something about triangles.

The thing that makes us sure that maths works is that, when we applied it to 3D (and 4D) space, it still worked.

What you are saying is that , if we are wrong about essentially everything in science then Dave may possibly be right.
Yes, but he's still overwhelmingly likely to be wrong, isn't he?


So Euclid's maths don't always work in the real, true, 3-D Universe
Euclid knew this.
It's called plane geometry.
He also knew that the world is round.

There is as much  support for the flat earth as there is for Dave's view.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/01/2021 20:42:43
Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid!    Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist,  who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.

That wouldn't make Dave's ideas correct.

If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks,  and claim:

"I always said it was a good idea all along!"

No. In order for me to say that, this hypothetical young scientist you speak of would have to have ideas that are actually correct. That would exclude the ideas as presented by Dave Lev.

Therefore, how can we regard maths as unchallengeable arbiters of truth?

Euclid wasn't wrong. Euclidean geometry applies to 2 dimensions. Once you step into 3 dimensions, you are stepping outside of Euclidean geometry. His math works just fine.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: evan_au on 11/01/2021 21:07:26
Quote from: charles1948
can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope.  Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?
That's a good point.

And the Big Bang Theory was hotly contested until someone invented a new kind of instrument, in 1964 - a large horn antenna originally used to bounce radio signals off the then-new artificial satellites in Earth orbit.
- They discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
- This was strong evidence for the Big Bang, and the competing theories pretty much fizzled out at that point
- Penzias & Wilson received the Nobel Prize in 1978 for this work

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#History
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/01/2021 17:30:05
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/01/2021 10:02:55
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.
No
For example, there's no observed lower boundary to the size of an electron.
Sorry, even electron must have some minimal physical property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength
"The Compton wavelength is a quantum mechanical property of a particle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
"In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction."
https://drrafaelferreira.com.br/vszq22/9tnp2d5.php?ef7478=who-invented-quantum-mechanics
"According to Planck, quantities of energy could be thought of as divided into "elements" whose size (E) would be proportional to their frequency (ν): where h is Planck's constant."
So, what is the real meaning of physical property? How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
We clearly see that any quanta of energy must have some physical property or minimal size as also stated by Planck.
Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.
Hence, how any scientist could accept the idea that in the size of proton we can fit the whole Energy/mass/particles of our current entire Universe (even if it is infinite)?
Therefore,, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:02:55
So, why during the BBT, both particle pair have got the positive BBT energy, while today the new particle pair around a SMBH must get ZERO energy (as the positive energy of one particle should be identical to the negative energy of the other one)?
The answer was "we don't know" and the answer is still "we don't know".
As you clearly don't know, then how do you know that what you know or don't know is correct or incorrect?
Actually, I think that you know.
You know that the assumption that ONLY the BBT energy could be transformed into new particle pair is one more imagination.
You can't explain why today energy can't have mass and be transformed into real new positive particles pair, while based on the BBT imagination, that process was feasible only for 10^-38 of a sec after the bang.
Therefore, you claim "we don't know" in order to bypass that key contradiction in the BBT.
Do you see why I keep saying you should learn science?
Sorry, as you don't know, it's better for you to learn some real science instead of just BBT "science".
Can you please offer article to support this understanding?
You can't offer any real Article to support your ideas as the BBT is a direct contradiction for real science.
Quote from: charles1948
can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope.  Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?
That's a good point.

And the Big Bang Theory was hotly contested until someone invented a new kind of instrument, in 1964 - a large horn antenna originally used to bounce radio signals off the then-new artificial satellites in Earth orbit.
- They discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
- This was strong evidence for the Big Bang, and the competing theories pretty much fizzled out at that point
- Penzias & Wilson received the Nobel Prize in 1978 for this work

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#History
Sorry, our BBT scientists don't understand the real meaning of the BBR in the CMBR.
They estimate that this BBR radiation had been generated ONLY at the recombination Era which took place for about 60M years. This time duration is relatively brief time frame with reference to the BBT total age of the Universe.
That estimation is one more imagination as there is no way to hold that kind of brief radiation (60 MY) that moves at the speed of light in a finite universe space for 13.4 BY or even for the infinity time. 
Please also be aware that based on the expansion theory it is feasible that some galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. So, theoretically, they could move faster than that CMBR. Therefore, there is no way for them to get the same radiation from all directions.


Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid!    Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist,  who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.
If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks,  and claim:
"I always said it was a good idea all along!"
Thanks charles1948
Do appreciate your support!
Please be aware that my theory is based on Einstein theory with some modifications.
Einstein had told us that the BBT is incorrect.
He had stated that new particle should be created at the Universe while galaxies are expanding from each other.
He also had rejected the idea that the space itself is expanding.
Unfortunately, those BBT scientists which are using Einstein formulas for the BBT, reject his theory. 
However, I'm positively sure that one day, sooner or later, all the scientists would understand that the BBT is useless and Einstein was fully correct in his messages/theory.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/01/2021 18:45:53
How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
It's not a problem: size = 0

It's only you who is choosing to ignore the size.

Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.
Non sequitur.

You have not demonstrated that claim.

Therefore,, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.
No
You seem to have already forgotten that I explained how particles could be produced.
Please try to pay attention.

As you clearly don't know, then how do you know that what you know or don't know is correct or incorrect?
There's a rock in my garden, I can barely shift it.
I don't know how it got there.
But I can say that it wasn't dropped there by a pigeon, because that would be impossible,

Sometimes, you don't need a better explanation to know that the given explanation is wrong.

You can't explain why today energy can't have mass
I can, and I have, but you keep ignoring it.

Therefore, you claim "we don't know" in order to bypass that key contradiction in the BBT.
There is no real contradiction; it's just that you keep refusing to understand it.

Sorry, as you don't know, it's better for you to learn some real science instead of just .
There's no such thing as BBT "science".
If you knew science, you would know that.



Sorry, our BBT scientists don't understand the real meaning of the BBR in the CMBR.
Yes we do.
You refuse to understand it, even when it is explained to you.

there is no way to hold that kind of brief radiation (60 MY) that moves at the speed of light in a finite universe space for 13.4 BY
Yes there is.
There's a way for it to happen. We have explained it to you.
You don't listen.
Therefore, there is no way for them to get the same radiation from all directions.
And yet, when you look, it is there.

Please be aware that my theory is based on Einstein theory with some modifications.
It is possible that Charles only knows one thing about Einstein's work- his famous equation
E=mc2
That shows that mass and energy are equivalent- they both bend spacetime in the same way.
Energy has mass (and mass has energy).
So the one thing which everybody knows about Einstein's work is that he proved that energy has mass.


And then we have Dave saying "
energy can't have mass
but claiming that his ideas are
based on Einstein theory

It doesn't take much understanding of physics to see that Dave is wrong.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/01/2021 05:15:45
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:30:05
How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
It's not a problem: size = 0
How can you ignore all the data which I have offered:
Sorry, even electron must have some minimal physical property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength
"The Compton wavelength is a quantum mechanical property of a particle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
"In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction."
https://drrafaelferreira.com.br/vszq22/9tnp2d5.php?ef7478=who-invented-quantum-mechanics
"According to Planck, quantities of energy could be thought of as divided into "elements" whose size (E) would be proportional to their frequency (ν): where h is Planck's constant."
So, what is the real meaning of physical property? How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
We clearly see that any quanta of energy must have some physical property or minimal size as also stated by Planck.
Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.
Hence, how any scientist could accept the idea that in the size of proton we can fit the whole Energy/mass/particles of our current entire Universe (even if it is infinite)?
Therefore, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.
I hope that at least you agree that particles have physical property.
So, let's start to understand what's the difference between Matter vs Particle?
https://wikidiff.com/particle/matter
"As nouns the difference between matter and particle is that matter is substance, material while particle is a very small piece of matter, a fragment; especially, the smallest possible part of something."
Hence - "particle is a very small piece of matter"

Now let's try to understand what's the meaning of "physical Properties of Matter".
https://packscience.weebly.com/chapter-2---physical-properties-of-matter.html
Matter is anything that takes up space and has mass. Everything is made of matter.  All matter has properties that allow us to describe.
Therefore - matter is anything that takes up space and has mass.
As you specifically claim that energy has mass, then this mass must take space.
Hence, even if we discuss on a particle which is a very small piece of matter, that particle which has mass must take space.
It might be very tiny space as the mass in that particle is very tiny, but it can't be absolutely zero.
It is possible that Charles only knows one thing about Einstein's work- his famous equation
E=mc2
That shows that mass and energy are equivalent- they both bend spacetime in the same way.
Energy has mass (and mass has energy).
So the one thing which everybody knows about Einstein's work is that he proved that energy has mass.
NO!!!
It's better for you to learn some science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron
"Massless virtual gluons compose the numerical majority of particles inside hadrons. The strength of the strong force gluons which bind the quarks together has sufficient energy (E) to have resonances composed of massive (m) quarks (E > mc2) .
So, gluons by itself is mass less energy.
However, once that energy is locked in hadron and the strong force of the gluons binds the quarks together then, and only then - we can claim that it:  "has sufficient energy (E) to have resonances composed of massive (m) quarks (E > mc2)"

Therefore, energy as a gluons is massless energy as long as it isn't integrated part in hadron.
Einstein had told us that the energy of Particle or Hardon is E=mc^2.
However, he didn't claim that energy has mass and he also didn't claim that energy means particles.
We also know that there are some particles which are mass and some other which are mass less, while all have energy.
It is amazing that you offer an electron & photon as examples for particles in order to prove that there is mass in energy, while they both are mass less particles.,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.
Therefore, this is another evidence why energy doesn't mean mass.

Hence, the order should be as follow:
Energy by itself is just energy without any sort of mass - for example free gluons.
We also know that free gluons by itself isn't a particle.
Therefore, there is a need for special structure to set a mass particle as Hadron.
Once the gluons is locked in a hardon its energy means 99% of the mass in that particle.
So, the same energy can be mass or mass less depends on the structure that it is located.

Conclusion - Energy by itself has no mass and any matter or particle must take up some minimal space in order to carry mass.
You specifically used an example of electron or photon that are mass less particles in order to show that it doesn't need space, while from the other hand you do understand the mass particles are needed to support the BBT.

So, you twist the science law and you twist Einstien formula inorder to support the imagination that "pure" BBT energy means mass and the entire mass/energy of our current Universe could take up space which is less than proton size.

Your imagination is clearly incorrect and it's better for you to set the BBT in the garbage.
The sooner is better.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/01/2021 08:59:12
How can you ignore all the data which I have offered:
You have not offered any evidence.
You have quoted lots of stuff from wiki.
But I am a scientist; I already know that stuff and, unlike you, I UNDERSTAND it.
So I understand that it does not actually  support your claim.

Do you see that telling me something which I already know will probably not change my mind?

So, for example

In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.
You have missed the fact that there are two sorts of mass- which is odd because you were going on about it earlier.
A massless particle has zero "rest mass " or "invariant mass".
But it still has relativistic mass.
The gluon is an example of such a particle.

If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realise that it doesn't mean what you want it to.

And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.

For example, here's where I already explained this to you
So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.

It is nonsense to try to say otherwise.

It is particularly stupid to try to say that photons don't habe mass after you posted that they  do.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 16:12:52
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√
The Mequivalent is the mass that enables particle production.
Why are you now saying that it doesn't exist?

Why don't you pay attention?

The rest of your post was also nonsense.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/01/2021 07:17:58
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:15:45
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.
You have missed the fact that there are two sorts of mass- which is odd because you were going on about it earlier.
A massless particle has zero "rest mass " or "invariant mass".
But it still has relativistic mass.
No, I didn't miss any fact.
I fully agree with your explanation about the rest mass and relativistic mass.
So, a mass less particle with a rest mass of Zero, would get a relativistic mass only due to its velocity with reference to its local space time.
However, based on the BBT, the matter doesn't move with reference to the local space time.
Our BBT scientists told us that during the inflation the matter moves with the expanding space at 50 Billion times the speed of light while the matter actually stays at rest.
Therefore, the matter isn't violating the relativity law as it is practically moving with its space-time at 50 Billions times the speed of light. .
Hence in one hand - in order to overcome the relativity law, based on the BBT, any matter should be at rest with reference to it's the local space time.
However, in the other hand, in order to get the relativistic mass, the matter must move in almost the speed of light with reference to its local space time.
That is one more key contradiction in the BBT story.
You can't tell us one story in order to overcome the one problem (relativity) while on the other hand you tell us the opposite story in order to overcome other problem (relativistic mass) .
This doesn't represent a real science. At the maximum it is a science fiction.
The gluon is an example of such a particle.
If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realise that it doesn't mean what you want it to.
And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.
A gluon in rest with reference to its local space time has zero mass. Therefore, based on the BBT fiction, even if it is drifted at 50 Billion times the speed due to the inflation in space it won't get any sort of relativistic mass.
Therefore:
"If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realize that it doesn't mean what you want it to.
And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here"

Why don't you pay attention?
The rest of your post was also nonsense.
Why don't you pay attention?
It's time for you to stop your nonsense and set your lovely BBT in the garbage!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/01/2021 09:00:24
However, based on the BBT, the matter doesn't move with reference to the local space time.
No, because that would breach the uncertainty principle.
Please learn science.
Our BBT scientists told us that during the inflation the matter moves with the expanding space at 50 Billion times the speed of light while the matter actually stays at rest.
No
The movement within space time is called the peculiar velocity.
Please learn physics


A gluon in rest with reference to its local space time has zero mass.
But, since nothing was at rest, that's irrelevant.
Please learn physics.

And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.

Why don't you pay attention?
I do.
But I pay attention to people who know what they are talking about, and you are not on that list.

If you want me to pay you any heed, you need to learn some science.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/01/2021 07:42:58
No
The movement within space time is called the peculiar velocity.
Please learn physics
No
We focus on the first moment after the Big Bang.
Acording to the BBT story 10^-43 Seconds after the Big Bang (at the Planck Era) the SPACE size of the whole early universe was at the Proton size:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
"The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton."
It is also stated very clearly that"
"During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.
That by itself kills your imagination about quantized energy:
We know that all energy is quantized so what you should say is
""Quantized energy" has mass, while  " any other sort of energy" does not exist."
Therefore, before you claim that: "we know that..." its better for you to learn the BBT story.
In any case, as that energy was locked at the Planck Era at a universe space of a proton size, there is no way for any imaginary "quantized energy" (That clearly were not there) to move outside the space of the whole early universe.
Hence, all the imaginary "quantized energies" could only move with the expansion of the space itself.
Therefore, they all have to be at rest with peculiar velocity = Zero, while their Recessional velocity is directly due to the total Universe proton size space expansion.
Hence:
1. At the Planck era there was no "quantized energy".
2. If there was any "quantized energy" - its peculiar velocity was clearly zero.
3. Without peculiar velocity, it couldn't has any real mass.
4. Without real mass there is no way to start the particle pair process.

I could stop at this point.

Never, the less, let's assume that somehow "quantized energies" (or "mass less particles") could exist at a early universe proton size and some of them could even have a peculiar velocity which is different from all the other Recessional velocity.
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light. We will call them: "mass particles"
As some of those mass particles might be very close to the edge of the proton, what would be the outcome as they bang the edge of the Universe space while their peculiar velocity is close to the speed of light?
Please - don't tell me that the edge of the proton size is also moving at the speed of light due to the Recessional velocity as in this case - the peculiar velocity will have to be zero and they would be considered as "mass less particles"

Hence, if the "mass particles" have peculiar velocity (which must be different from the Recessional velocity)- some of those mass particles have to bang the edge of the early universe.
Therefore, the question is as follow:
Can those "mass particles" that have high peculiar velocity break the edge of the early universe and move outside to the aria without space or they should bang inwards?
If they can move outwards - then the idea of no space outside the early universe is just a fiction. Also, as they move outside from all the other mass less particles at their peculiar velocity, they won't have any more impact on all the other left over "mass less particles" which have zero/low peculiar velocity.
If they bang inwards - they have to move at ultra high peculiar velocity (at almost the speed of light) with reference to the other "mass less particles"

However, in order to set the particle pair production - a nearby mass should be located.
So, how a mass less particle that should be considered as a mass particale (as a photon) that is moving at the speed of light with reference to other mass less particles could be considered for them as "nearby mass"?
Without "nearby mass", there is no pair production process.

Sorry - the BBT story is totally wrong.
Please learn some physics and improve your knowledge in the BBT story before you share your nonsense with us.

From now on, I will totally ignore any nonsense that you might highlight without backup it with relevant article!!!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 11:26:42
Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.
Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.

Not necessarily "at" that moment, it could have been slightly later when the universe had expanded a bit.
So the "it's not big enough" argument isn't valid. It's a straw man.


its peculiar velocity was clearly zero.
Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.
No, because that would breach the uncertainty principle.
Please learn science.

I could stop at this point.
You should have stopped some time ago.

However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.
That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.

Also, it was very hot, anything would be traveling at very high speeds anyway.

Can those "mass particles" that have high peculiar velocity break the edge of the early universe and move outside to the aria without space or they should bang inwards?
You are the one who invented them. You get to decide what their properties are. But remember they are entirely a figment of your imagination.
You can have them unicorn shaped if you like, but they can't be used to prove or refute anything, because you just made them up.

Rather than writing fairy stories, you should study science (and also try to remember what has already been pointed out to you)
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/01/2021 13:48:07
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:42:58
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.
That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.
Why don't you stop your nonsense or at least backup it by real article?
Do you think that you know science better than Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside:
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/massless-particles-cant-be-stopped
"Massless particles are purely energy. “It’s sufficient for a particle to have energy to have a meaningful sense of existence,” says Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside."
"Photons and gluons, two force-carrying particles, are fundamental, so they don’t host the internal tug-of-war of a composite particle. They are also unaffected by the Higgs field. Indeed, they seem to be without mass."
"The two particles physicists know to be (at least approximately) massless—photons and gluons—are both force-carrying particles, also known as gauge bosons. Photons are associated with the electromagnetic force, and gluons are associated with the strong force. (The graviton, a gauge boson associated with gravity, is also expected be massless, but its existence hasn’t been confirmed yet.)"

It is also stated the massless particles always travel at the speed of light.:
"These massless particles have some unique properties. They are completely stable, so unlike some particles, they do not lose their energy decaying into pairs of less massive particles.
Because all their energy is kinetic, they always travel at the speed of light. And thanks to special relativity, “things traveling at the speed of light don't actually age,” Tanedo says. “So a photon is actually not aging relative to us. It’s timeless, in that sense.”

So, how can you claim that "smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero" while Massless particles MUST move at the speed of light?
Please learn some physics and then give a call.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:42:58
Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.
Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.
Please address and backup your points by real article.
Otherwise, there is no meaning for your nonsense points.

As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 15:35:31
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.
Why the obsession with articles?
Do you understand that I can write an article and post it on the web?

Anyway, it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.

So, as i keep pointing out, the problem is that you don't understand science.

You seem to have missed your own point.
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.

So they don't feature in
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.

I apologise for failing to state the obvious clearly enough for you to understand it.
So, for the benefit of the slow learners...
That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the relativistic mass above zero.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 15:36:34
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.
If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/01/2021 18:59:45
it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.
You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.
I have just proved that you have a fatal error with regards to the speed of light of massless particles and you even do not apologize on that.
Now you try to twist the story:
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.
Sorry - there are no other massless particles that could move at low velocity. It was clearly stated in the article.
So you keep on with the same negative approach.
I actually do believe that you have deep knowledge in science and I am positively sure that you knew that massless particles can't move at a low velocity.
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct, but you keep on with your objections as the BBT is more important to you than real science.
Therefore, it is very clear to me by now that in order to disqualify my messages against the BBT you are ready to lie.
Hence, I can't believe you anymore and I ask you to backup your lies with real articles.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:48:07
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.
If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?
No.
Nobody in this forum has used any sort of lie in order to disqualify my understanding.
Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.
Therefore, I have no intention to accept those lies any more.
Shame on you!

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 19:20:30
You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.
Stop saying things that are clearly incorrect.
Then I won't be able to highlight them and show that your messages are wrong.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 19:23:38
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct
No.
You said that things had to be moving fast to have relativistic mass, and I pointed out that even slow things have (very small) relativistic mass.

This is not important to the early universe, because practically nothing was moving slowly.
But you tried to use something which was wrong and irrelevant to make a point.
That's not scientific discussion, is it?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 19:25:42
Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.
I have not told any lies.
I might have made the odd mistake, like not being clear that I was talking about the relativistic mass.

If you think I keep lying, you should have no difficulty quoting things I have said which are dishonest.

Go on.
Quote them.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/01/2021 02:52:38
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:59:45
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct
No.
You said that things had to be moving fast to have relativistic mass, and I pointed out that even slow things have (very small) relativistic mass.
No
We have discussed about massless particles which could break the edge of the total early universe proton space size due to their high peculiar velocity.
We know that there are different types of particles. Some are mass particles and some are massless particles.
Please tell us which kind of verified massless "things" were integrated/generated by the Big Bang energy and could move at low speed (much low than the speed of light) in order to gain some relativistic mass.
As you wish to believe in those "things" instead of real massless particles, would you kindly tell us what was the peculiar velocity of those "things"?
Do you also claim that no verified massless particle (as photon) had been generated by the Big Bang?
So are you sure that there were no massles particles or "things" that could have a peculiar velocity of almost the speed of light immediately after that bang?
Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?

If not, why do you keep on with all of those lies?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2021 10:36:35
We have discussed about massless particles which could break the edge of the total early universe proton space size due to their high peculiar velocity.
No; you talked about them.
I ignored you because I was still trying to get you to understand that even a slow particle has relativistic mass.
So there was mass in the early universe so pair production was possible.

You then went off on some rant about massless particles traveling at C which is true, but can not be relevant to a discussion of slow particles.

Please tell us which kind of verified massless "things" were integrated/generated by the Big Bang energy and could move at low speed (much low than the speed of light) in order to gain some relativistic mass.
That makes no sense.
We don't need anything to go slowly.

Even things that are travelling at C can still gain mass.
If I reflect light off a mirror that is moving towards the source, the reflected photons have more energy and thus a higher mass than they did before reflection.

All you need to enable pair production is mass.
And there was mass there
So we could have pair production.





would you kindly tell us what was the peculiar velocity of those "things"?
For the sake of discussion, they would probably have a Boltzmann distribution of velocities.

As you wish to believe in those "things" instead of real massless particles,
I never said anything like that.
You made it up, or you have failed to understand the science I was talking about.
If you think I did then please point it out.

Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?
Why the obsession with articles?
Do you understand that I can write an article and post it on the web?

Anyway, it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2021 10:38:20
Everything that BC says is correct.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2021 10:39:52
Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?
I can now.
Please see this brief article on the web.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg625354#msg625354

Now do you see why demanding articles just makes you look silly?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/01/2021 12:53:05
Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?
I can now.
Please see this brief article on the web.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg625354#msg625354
Now do you see why demanding articles just makes you look silly?
Sorry, you can't just backup your nonsense by your own nonsense even if you believe that your nonsense should be considered as "science".
You have totally failed to backup the BBT imagination by real science articles.
Actually, the energy in the BBT can't even cross the Era Planck size and it clearly can't set any sort of particle pair.

However, the biggest obstacle of the BBT theory is time and space.
The assumption that the BBT can create the time and the space in our universe is the biggest imagination EVER. (Much more than any imagination about mass or energy.)
Sorry - you and all the BBT scientists could play in your imagination with energy and mass as you wish, however, no one could play with space or time.
The space & time in our Universe was there forever and ever.
The BBT can't create time or space. Einstein had confirmed that message.
No one can create time or space. The BBT isn't the God of the Universe. Even in the Billie they do not claim for that.

Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.

In our real Universe the Time and space was always there.
There was a time while there was no matter in our Universe and it was clearly infinite empty space. However, don't forget that even in empty space there is some energy.
Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).
As the BBT scientists won't accept the simple idea that they have no legal authorization to play with time and space, we all should ignore the BBT nonsense and clear the table for real science.

Any new theory for our universe should start while the infinite space and infinite time was always there!!!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 13:01:44
Sorry, you can't just backup your nonsense by your own nonsense even if you believe that your nonsense should be considered as "science".
So, you, missed the point again.
Of course it's nonsense; that's the point.
An article on the web can be nonsense.
Why do you keep demanding "articles"?


Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.
OK
We can see the expansion of space.
We can see that , if we extrapolate that backwards there's a "crunch". There is a point- about 14 billion years ago when everything which we can see today was in the same place
If you don't accept the big bang, then you need to explain what happened before the experimentally observed  expansion started.

What is your explanation?

(also, please stop posting stuff about songs).
Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).
It can't.
Olber showed that.

As the BBT scientists won't accept the simple idea
Of course we don't.
Because it's plainly wrong.

If you understood science you wouldn't keep going on about an idea that is dead.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/01/2021 16:19:45
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:53:05
Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.
OK
We can see the expansion of space.
We can see that , if we extrapolate that backwards there's a "crunch". There is a point- about 14 billion years ago when everything which we can see today was in the same place
If you don't accept the big bang, then you need to explain what happened before the experimentally observed  expansion started.
Why do you lie?
We don't see any expansion is space.
We only see expansion of the galaxies.
The assumption that the expansion of the galaxies is due to the expansion in space is one of the BIGGEST mistakes of the modern science.
Therefore, you should set the BBT in the garbage.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:53:05
Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).
It can't.
Olber showed that.
Well, Olber had assumed that if the universe is infinity then we should get the light form a galaxy which is located at the infinity in that universe.
However, that assumption is clearly incorrect.
The Universe is infinity.
There are galaxies up to the infinity.
However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.
So, we can only get light from galaxies which are located up to a limited distance.
That distance might be 13BLY, 130Bly or more than that.
However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.
Therefore, even as the infinite universe is totally not symmetrical and we are actually located much closer to one side (but still far away from the edge), at any spot that we would be in that Universe we should observe up to limited distance.
Hence, the CMBR is almost identical in each direction.
So, technically at any spot that we would be in our infinite Universe, the impact of the radiation would come from a limited radius sphere around us.
We can call this sphere an Observable or Visible Universe.
But it is just a local point in the infinite Universe
I have already explained this issue to you, but as you have already rejected this real science explanation in the past, I assume that you should do it again.

You don't care about real science - you only care about the BBT nonsense of space expansion.
Sorry again - there is no space expansion in our universe
You and all the BBT scientists lie about it!!!.
The space was fixed in the past and it would be fixed in the future.
It can't increase its size by 1 Pico mm even per 10^10...0 trillion LY.
As you clearly believe that we see the expansion in space - you live in lie. However, you don't just lie to all of us, but you specifically lie to yourself.

Please wake up and get out from the BBT imagination.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 17:22:24
Why do you lie?
You have not yet shown any evidence that I do.
That's because, in the real world, I don't.


We only see expansion of the galaxies.
We see the galaxies getting further apart.
The thing between them is space.
So we see space getting bigger.

But the point is moot.
What we see is expansion.
If you play that back, you get a crunch.

However, that assumption is clearly incorrect.
Why?
Please answer that without recourse to "tired light" ideas which have already been shown to be false.


However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.
That's only possible if space itself is expanding.
You didn't seem to like that idea.
However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.
You only get that in an expanding universe.
An expanding universe implies that it expanded "from somewhere".
And that's what we call the Big Bang.
So, if you don't accept the BBT you can't have your expansion.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/01/2021 19:10:45
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45
We only see expansion of the galaxies.
We see the galaxies getting further apart.
The thing between them is space.
So we see space getting bigger.
What a nonsense.
If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting bigger due to the expansion in space?
In the same token if we move closer to each other does it mean that there is crunch in space?
Sorry - galaxies can move in any direction and at any velocity without changing the space.
The space is fixed and it will always be fixed with or without your confirmation.

What we see is expansion.
If you play that back, you get a crunch.
Nonsense...
Our BBT scientists claim that new matter could only be created at the Big Bang moment.
However, Einstein has told us very clearly that new matter is constantly generated in our Universe.
Therefore, as the galaxies are moving away from each other new galaxies pop up/added in between.
All the particles in the accretion disc of our SMBH are new particles.
Those particles would be converted into new molecular and set new stars and new BH.
Each BH would hold massive galaxy in the Future.
Therefore, if you play the time back, the galaxies would come closer, but each galaxy would shrink eventually to a tiny BH.
The Milky Way had started some time ago as a very tiny BH. Same story with Andromeda or any other massive galaxy.
So, if you play the galaxies expansion back, you don't get any crunch as there is no expansion in the space itself.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45
However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.
That's only possible if space itself is expanding.
More Nonsense.
It is possible due to the idea of galaxies over galaxies - if you wish, rocket over rocket.
I have already deeply explained that process.

 
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45
However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.
You only get that in an expanding universe.
Rocket over rocket can do the job.
Think about galaxies generations.
if each tiny BH is ejected from its mother galaxy at velocity V, while each BH would be converted to massive galaxy - then after 10 generations (assuming that all are moving in one direction, the younger galaxy would move at 10 times V with regards to the first galaxy.
Is it clear to you?
No need for space expansion. Only new particle creation as stated by Einstein is good enough.

An expanding universe implies that it expanded "from somewhere".
Well, it is not expanding Universe, but expanding galaxies.
Even so, I agree with you as it implies that the galaxies must eventually start "from somewhere".
However, that somewhere had started infinite time ago by some sort of a bang (or small bang).
The bang had created the first BH in our infinite and empty Universe, while that BH is the mother of all the infinite galaxies that exists today in our infinite Universe.
So, yes it started from somewhere, but that somewhere is just tiny spot at the infinite empty universe space and not the whole space of the Universe as you wish to believe based on the BBT.

And that's what we call the Big Bang.
Yes, I agree - the matter had stated by a Bang.
However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.

So, if you don't accept the BBT you can't have your expansion.
I assume that you have already got an answer for that message.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 19:27:29
If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting bigger
Yes.
For example, you might increase the space from two metres to three.
I think this may be a linguistic problem.
However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.
No, it isn't - because of the conservation of energy.
No matter how hot it was at the outset, in an infinite time, it would have gone cold.

You have not yet shown any evidence that I do.
That's because, in the real world, I don't.
Still waiting for you to try to prove your silly claim that I'm a liar.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 19:37:27
Is it clear to you?
It is clear to me that you don't know how to add velocities.
You have been told before that you can't use newtonian physics in these sorts of calculations.
You didn't use the right formula, did you?
The one you used is a Newtonian one, and what you need is a relativistic one.

If you actually understood what you were talking about, you would have realised that.
But you didn't.
Because you don't.
.

And you were told this before
That's still wrong.
You can't just add relativistic velocities as if they were apples.

So is the problem stupidity or dishonesty?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/01/2021 19:59:24
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45
If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting bigger
Yes.
For example, you might increase the space from two metres to three.
I think this may be a linguistic problem.
Sorry
We move in our planet in all directions while the total space in the planet is fixed.
So, there is no change in the space of the planet due to our movement.
In the same token the total size of the Universe is fixed with or without the movement of the galaxies in that space.
Therefore, the movements of the galaxies in the Universe space don't change the total space of the infinite Universe.


Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45
However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.
No, it isn't - because of the conservation of energy.
No matter how hot it was at the outset, in an infinite time, it would have gone cold.
Einstein had told us very clearly that new particle creation is real
He also gave the explanation for that process.
I'm not going to argue about that issue any more.
If you think that you that Einstein is foolish than it is your personal problem.

Still waiting for you to try to prove your silly claim that I'm a liar.
Yes you are liar.
As you claim that we see the expansion in space while we only see expansion in galaxies - then this is a clear lie.
You twist again and again the data in order to confuse me.
Please stop it once and for all.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45
Is it clear to you?
It is clear to me that you don't know how to add velocities.
You have been told before that you can't use newtonian physics in these sorts of calculations.
It doesn't matter if we use Newtonian one or relativistic one for the correct answer.
As long as we agree that 10 times v is bigger than 9 times v it's good enough to explain the ultra high velocity of the far end galaxies.
So, even if 10,000 generation of galaxies is needed for the farthest galaxy that we can still see, this is perfectly OK.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 20:02:46
Yes you are liar.
You keep saying that.
But you keep failing to prove it.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/01/2021 04:11:22
Yes you are liar.
You keep saying that.
But you keep failing to prove it.
I have a solid prove for you.
It is called "Redshift".
Redshift is all about relative Newtonian velocity.
If we see an object with redshift of 0.1 then we know that its Newtonian velocity must be 0.1c with reference to us.
In the same token, when we see an object with redshift 1 it tells us that its Newtonian velocity is exactly 1c with reference to us.
The fastest galaxy that we can still observe has a redshift of about 13.
So, we can still see a galaxy that its Newtonian velocity is 13c with reference to us.
However, as we can still see those galaxies, it proves that Einstein was perfectly correct with his relativity theory.
So, although galaxies have Newtonian velocity of 13c their relativity velocity must be below c otherwise we couldn't see them any more.
I assume that as we will improve our tools we might see galaxies with higher redshift (15 or 20?).
So, there must be a maximal velocity for the direct observable light radiation that we can still see.

However, the CMBR radiation is different kind of radiation as it is actually a microwave radiation.
It works as RADAR.
Think about a pilot in a plane.
He can only observe to a very limited distance.
However, by using its microwave radar he can "see" objects from very far away distances (at least 100 times further).
https://www.univie.ac.at/geographie/fachdidaktik/FD/site/external_htmls/imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/micro.html
"Because microwaves can penetrate haze, light rain and snow, clouds and smoke, these waves are good for viewing the Earth from space."
That is why we get the CMBR radiation with a redshift of almost 1100.
That CMBR microwave radiation tells us that it came from objects/galaxies which are moving away at Newtonian velocity of 1100c with reference to us.
So, there is a sphere for maximal observable light (about 13 c) and there is a sphere for maximal observable microwave (1100c).
That is the answer for what we really see in our infinite universe.
In the same token, the CMBR microwaves radiation can better penetrate the haze of our universe
Our BBT scientists had twisted the real meaning of redshift.
They call it "redshift in Astronomy" and somehow they twist that data to time or distance (due to Hubbel law I assume).
Sorry, the meaning of redshift in real science has the same meaning in astronomy.
It is all about Newtonian velocity and ONLY about Newtonian velocity.
Not distance, not time.
Therefore, with regards to the following:
"In the 1960's a startling discovery was made quite by accident. A pair of scientists at Bell Laboratories detected background noise using a special low noise antenna. The strange thing about the noise was that it was coming from every direction and did not seem to vary in intensity much at all. If this static were from something on our world, like radio transmissions from a nearby airport control tower, it would only come from one direction, not everywhere. The scientists soon realized they had discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation, which fills the entire Universe, is believed to be a clue to it's beginning, something known as the Big Bang."
No No
We actually see the CMBR microvwaves radiation that comes from all the very far away galaxies around us which are moving away at almost 1100c (Newtonian velocity).
That CMBR microwave radiation can penetrate the haze of our universe. Therefore we can see them in all directions.
Due to that twisted data, our BBT scientists have totally got lost.

Its wake up time for all of you.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2021 08:38:28
You seem to have lost track of what you were doing there, and started ranting about Newtonian redshift- which doesn't work anyway.

I have a solid prove for you.
OK, so quote something which I have said, and which is not true (and which I knew wasn't true).

That's the only way to prove your assertion that I'm a liar.
And, if you don't do that- or apologise, I'm going to ask the mods to ban you for your libellous allegation.

Do you understand that?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/01/2021 05:44:12
OK, so quote something which I have said, and which is not true (and which I knew wasn't true).
That's the only way to prove your assertion that I'm a liar.
As you insist...

it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.
You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.
I have just proved that you have a fatal error with regards to the speed of light of massless particles and you even do not apologize on that.
Now you try to twist the story:
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.
Sorry - there are no other massless particles that could move at low velocity. It was clearly stated in the article.
So you keep on with the same negative approach.
I actually do believe that you have deep knowledge in science and I am positively sure that you knew that massless particles can't move at a low velocity.
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct, but you keep on with your objections as the BBT is more important to you than real science.
Therefore, it is very clear to me by now that in order to disqualify my messages against the BBT you are ready to lie.
Hence, I can't believe you anymore and I ask you to backup your lies with real articles.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:48:07
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.
If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?
No.
Nobody in this forum has used any sort of lie in order to disqualify my understanding.
Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.
Therefore, I have no intention to accept those lies any more.
Shame on you!

Let me add the following:
you clearly lie when you have stated that:
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.
As any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light as was clearly explained at the following article:
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/massless-particles-cant-be-stopped
"Massless particles are purely energy. “It’s sufficient for a particle to have energy to have a meaningful sense of existence,” says Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside."
"Photons and gluons, two force-carrying particles, are fundamental, so they don’t host the internal tug-of-war of a composite particle. They are also unaffected by the Higgs field. Indeed, they seem to be without mass."
"The two particles physicists know to be (at least approximately) massless—photons and gluons—are both force-carrying particles, also known as gauge bosons. Photons are associated with the electromagnetic force, and gluons are associated with the strong force. (The graviton, a gauge boson associated with gravity, is also expected be massless, but its existence hasn’t been confirmed yet.)"
It is also stated that the massless particles always travel at the speed of light.:
"These massless particles have some unique properties. They are completely stable, so unlike some particles, they do not lose their energy decaying into pairs of less massive particles.
Because all their energy is kinetic, they always travel at the speed of light. And thanks to special relativity, “things traveling at the speed of light don't actually age,” Tanedo says. “So a photon is actually not aging relative to us. It’s timeless, in that sense.”

So, how can you claim that "smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero" while Massless particles MUST move at the speed of light?
There are no mass less particles that could move at low velocity.
Therefore, your answer that some mass less particles could move at small velocity and gain mass is clearly lie as there are no massless particles that move at small velocity - and you know that!
That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.

Shame on you as your mission is to base your arguments on lie just in order to confuse me.
Therefore, from now on I do not believe to any message from you.
If you wish to continue the discussion it is your obligation to backup your messages by real article.
Let's start with the following:
Please offer an article (not yours) that shows which kind of massless particle moves at "small velocity" .
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 08:59:05
Let me add the following:
you clearly lie when you have stated that:
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 15:35:31
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.
As any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light as was clearly explained at the following article:
If you read that carefully, you will see that we are both saying the same thing.

"The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C."
 Simplifying that we get: "particles that have zero rest mass ... are ...travelling at C."
And you say
"any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light "

So, you say I'm lying because I say the same thing you do.

At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?


The reason I said it was that you had just said this
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.

And I was pointing out that you are wrong.
You claim to know the physics.
If you know it then you must have lied when you said "in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high "
Or you must have lied when you said that you didn't need to learn physics.

Which lie did you tell?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/01/2021 09:40:07
At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?
Yes, you are wrong!
Mass less particles have zero rest mass.
However, as they move at the speed of light they have relativistic mass due to their velocity.
Never the less, all the massless particles in the UNIVERSE MUST move at the speed of light..
Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".
Therefore, your following point is clearly incorrect (or lie if you wish)
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
There are no massless particles that move slow and have relativistic mass.
Is it clear to you by now or you insist to waste our time?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 11:49:29
At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?
Yes, you are wrong!
Mass less particles have zero rest mass.
However, as they move at the speed of light they have relativistic mass due to their velocity.
Never the less, all the massless particles in the UNIVERSE MUST move at the speed of light..
Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".
Therefore, your following point is clearly incorrect (or lie if you wish)
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
There are no massless particles that move slow and have relativistic mass.
Is it clear to you by now or you insist to waste our time?
I presume you are an idiot, or you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

All particles have mass.

Either they have zero rest mass, but are in motion and therefore have kinetic energy and therefore have relativistic mass.
Or they have non-zero rest mass in which case they obviously have mass.

You were still wrong when you said that things had to move fast to have relativistic mass.


Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".

I obviously wasn't  talking about massless particles.


I never assumed that there were massless particles with speeds less than C.
I may have not made that clear, but that's not the same as lying.

What I actually said was
I was talking about slow particles.
Since they are slow, they are obviously not massless.
I never said that they were massless.
What I said was that, they still have  a rest mass and a relativistic mass.
Even if they are slow, there is still some M from E=MC2

So you were wrong to say "However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light."

You seem to believe everything else Einstein said.
The most famous thing he said was that mass and energy are equivalent.

Do you not accept that, if I am pushed across the room, I gain mass because I gain energy?

Now, once again, please quote something which I said which I knew to be false.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/01/2021 19:40:41
I obviously wasn't  talking about massless particles.
I never assumed that there were massless particles with speeds less than C.
I may have not made that clear, but that's not the same as lying.
Sorry, this is incorrect!
We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.
You have stated that:
You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.
You just need something with mass.
As an example for something with mass you had offered a photon:
So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.
However, photon is actually a massless particle that its velocity is c.
So, you had used an example for massless particle and therefore you lie when you had stated that:
I obviously wasn't  talking about massless particles.
You lie before and you continue to lie also now.
Don't you have any intention to stop those lies?
Please - don't waste my time any more on this nonsense.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 20:11:40
We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.
And you forgot about this bit of it

A photon has mass.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/01/2021 05:44:37
We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.
And you forgot about this bit of it
A photon has mass.
You lie again.
Photon is a massless particle whose invariant mass is zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
"In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons".
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2021 10:35:28
We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.
And you forgot about this bit of it
A photon has mass.
You lie again.
Photon is a massless particle whose invariant mass is zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
"In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons".

If they wanted to say the photon has no mass they would have said so, wouldn't they?
Why do you think they had to put the word "invariant" in there?
It is to distinguish it from relativistic mass- which the photon has in accordance with Einstein's equation.

So, the photon has no rest mass (or invariant mass) but it has relativistic mass.
So it has mass.

And it would be better if you learned some science.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/01/2021 19:01:57
Wow
You have stated that
I obviously wasn't  talking about massless particles.
When I have highlighted that you were taking about Photon which is clearly a massless particle, your reply is::
So, the photon has no rest mass (or invariant mass) but it has relativistic mass.
And it would be better if you learned some science.
Therefore, my answer to you is:
It would be better if you first respect yourself.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2021 19:53:31
A photon has mass.
Since you seem to have an obsession with articles...
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
You seem to stuck with the short answer to recognise that the long answer is what's important here.

It has mass in the sense that it  can carry momentum
And that means that it can act as the mass you need for pair production.
And that's the thing you keep being wrong about.

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/01/2021 21:08:25
Let's move on.

It has mass in the sense that it  can carry momentum
And that means that it can act as the mass you need for pair production.
And that's the thing you keep being wrong about.
OK
As you are The master of the BBT science, please answer the following (no need to backup any answer with any article) just your free message:

1. Before the Big Bang?
What was there before the Big Bang?
Are you sure that there was no space, no time, no energy no matter in the entire Universe before the Big Bang?
Actually, what is the meaning of a Universe without space?
If there was a bang at one no space, why there couldn't be other bang at other no space?
So what is the chance that there was other bang before or after the Big bang?

2. Time
If there was other bang at different no space location, why can't we start the time from that other bang?

3. BBT Energy/momentum:
You highlight the idea of Momentum.
So, how that BBT momentum/energy had been created/transformed into no space while there was no other space or energy or even other bang before that Big bang?

4. Space
How the space itself had been created by a bang?
We know about energy transformation or momentum, but is there any possibility for space transformation?
So what could be the source of energy/force/momentum... that could set the proton size of the Early Universe while there was no space at any no space?

4. Curvature in the Universe
Our scientists tell us that there is a curvature in our Universe.
They also add that due to curvature our 3D space acts as a 2D planet surface.
So, if that surface is expanding, don't you agree that it should overlap itself?
Hence, the expansion in 2D planet surface can't increase the planet size.
Therefore, if there is a curvature in our Universe, how the space could increase from that proton size?
Hence, why can't that curvature in our Universe force it to stay at that proton size?
So could it be that we actually living in a proton size while due to curvature idea we only think that our universe is quite big and has no edge?
Let's assume that that the universe can really expands in 3D outside that proton size.
In this case, why can't we assume that there is an edge for the Universe as based on the BBT there is an aria with space and aria without space at that stage.
Hence:
If there is a curvature in space - Our universe should stay at a proton size forever.
If there is no curvature - our real universe Must be infinite (or at least significantly big).
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2021 23:38:10
Let's move on.
Does that mean you finally grasped the fact that you were wrong and had been calling me a liar for no reason?

If so, I'm happy to move on, subject to a simple condition.
In the future, when I tell you something, you have to accept that it's true.

The reasoning behind that is simple.
You have consistently demonstrated an utter lack of ability to tell fact from fiction.

So, are we going to move on, or are you still going to question textbook science?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: charles1948 on 23/01/2021 00:10:00


So, are we going to move on, or are you still going to question textbook science?

Never question textbook science on this site.  It doesn't pay.  The entire site is set up to promote scientific orthodoxy.

But I suspect there's a dissident among the Inner Party.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/01/2021 00:29:35
Never question textbook science on this site.

It's perfectly fine to do so if you have evidence. Evidence is the all-important word in that sentence, by the way. Misunderstandings are not evidence (which are almost always what the people in New Theories try to use as evidence).
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 00:37:22
Never question textbook science without evidence on this site.  It doesn't pay.

FTFY
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 00:38:46
But I suspect there's a dissident among the Inner Party.
You seem to be hallucinating the existence of a party (inner or otherwise).
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 05:23:15
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:08:25
Let's move on.
Does that mean you finally grasped the fact that you were wrong and had been calling me a liar for no reason?
No
I still fully disagree with you about the BBT process for pair production.
The BBT "pure Energy" that was delivered "free of charge" to our proton Universe size would never ever represent/ create/ or transformed into even one particle pair.
The reasons for that are as follow:
1. Einstein had to told us that in any mass there is energy (E=mc^2), but he didn't say that in any energy there is mass.
2. If you insist that there is mass in any energy then why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that the energy which exists today in our universe (including EM energy) couldn't be transformed into real new particle pair?
Why do you reject the idea that the EM energy around our SMBH can't generate new positive particale pair while we clearly see the strong light of the photons that had been created during that process.
Why only the BBT energy had been set all the particles in the Universe (based on Einstien law E=mc^2) while today that formula doesn't work any more?
Hence, as long as they don't know why the energy of today can't set new particle pair (or even a photon) while they are so sure that the BBT energy could easily do it - this assumption of the BBT pair particle process is clearly not realistic.
3. In any case, based on the BBT theory the energy in the first pure energy could only create particles with relativistic mass but with zero rest mass. Photon and gluons are the ONLY particle in the whole Universe that could meet that description.
However, as the gluons never observed as a free particle. Therefore, the only real particle that can meet the BBT request is Photon.
4. With regards to photon: Photon is actually a cell of electromagnetic energy. As the BBT energy can't be EM than it clearly can't generate any Photon. Even if you personally bring those photons to the BBT it won't help. Photon must move at the speed of light. Therefore although it meets the requirement for relativistic mass, it can't meet the request for nearby mass as requested by pair production process due to its ultra high velocity. Therefore, even one trillion photons won't help to set even one new pair of particle.
5. You are surly fully aware about all of that information. Therefore, in order to break the science limitation, you had suggested that there are other relativistic mass particles (with zero rest mass) that should move at low velocity. However, so far you couldn't offer which kind of particle could meet this imagination request.

That by itself is good enough to kill the BBT idea at the same moment of the bang.


Evidence is the all-important word in that sentence,
Is it?
What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?
Is it 100%?
Do we know what was there before the Big Bang?
Do we know how the BBT energy had been delivered to the early Universe?
Do we know how the space itself had been created at no space and why it is expanding?
Do we know why the BBT energy could set a pair production while the energy today can't set that process any more?
If the answer to all the questions is yes, then we can stop at this point.
If not:
Don't you agree that the BBT comes before any evidence?
Don't you agree that our BBT scientists set the BBT on the table and then they try to fit any new evidence to that BBT?
Actually, it seems to me that in most of the new discoveries there is no fit to the BBT. So first our scientists are quite surprise. Then they invent new patch for the BBT to close the gap.
How many times did they update the BBT from day one of this theory?
What is the current version on that BBT?
As a design engineer, if I was in charge on that BBT software, I would probably set it in the garbage after a few versions.
That what any real design engineer would do. We are lucky that our astronomy scientists do not control on our electronics equipments. In this case, we could stuck at the early electronics time as we stuck with the BBT for almost 100 years.
Why even for just one moment our scientists can't eliminate the BBT and focus only on all the evidences that we have today and then find a theory that meets all of those evidences by 100%?
Don't you agree that only 100% fit (without any message as "we don't know") should be considered as the real theory for our Universe? Hence, a theory with 90% fit or with some integrated sections of "we don't know" should be set in the garbage?

So, let me ask you some questions about "evidence"

1. Space expansion:
Where is the evidence for space expansion? You personally told me that we only see expansion of the galaxies. So why do we claim that we observe the space expansion?

2. CMBR
CMBR doesn't give any evidence for the BBT.
It is a microwave radiation that comes from all directions at almost the same amplitude and therefore it represents the whole Universe.
So, why that CMBR doesn't represent the radiation from the entire Universe around us?
Why do we insist to use it only for the BBT story?

3. Redshift
Don't you agree that redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity?
So why do we twist the real meaning of redshift when it comes to BBT?

4. SMBH Accretion disc
Do we see the ultra strong light (Photons) that is ejected from the accretion disc?
Do we see the particles at the accretion disc that are moving at almost at the speed of light?
So, why can't we believe that what we see are actually new created particles?
Why do we reject the clear message from Einstein that new particles are created at our current Universe in order to compensate the matter/galaxies that are drifting away?
Why only the BBT can create new particles while we reject the particles creation activity that we clearly see in front of our eyes?

5. Falling stars into the accretion disc
So far we didn't find any evidence for any falling matter/ gas cloud or stars into the accretion disc of our SMBH.
On the contrary. We ONLY see matter that ejected from the accretion disc. We clearly see that ultra long molecular get stream (27,000LY) that is ejected upwards/downwards from the poles of the SMBH at almost the 0.8 c.
Why do we insist that this matter in an outcome of a falling star instead of new created matte, while the evidence tells us that no star is falling in and we only see matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH.
So why do we reject the clear evidence that we see?

6. SMBH size
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how all the SMBH in our Universe had been created. The most difficult issue for them is how a young massive galaxies that are located at almost 13 BLY away could establish their SMBH size in so short time after the BBT.
Why they reject the idea that a SMBH/BH should be able to generate the mass that is needed for itself as the mass that is needed for its own galaxy?
Think about the efficiency of that real pair particle production process of our Universe.
One particle is falling into the SMBH and increases its mass, while the other particle is drifting outwards to the accretion disc and would be used later on to form new star.
The efficiency of the pair production in this process is 100%, while based on the BBT - the efficiency was less than 0.00..1% as most of the new particles pair had been eliminated at the same moment of their creation.

7. Curvature in space
Do you confirm that our scientists do not observe any sort of curvature in space?
Hence, there is no evidence for curvature in our Universe space. So why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that there is curvature in the space?

So please
Would you kindly use real observations and real evidences for our Universe theory instead of imagination ideas as the BBT?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 12:43:28
No
I still fully disagree with you science about the BBT process for pair production.
FTFY
It's the same pair production process that we can observe in a lab today.

1. Einstein had to told us that in any mass there is energy (E=mc^2), but he didn't say that in any energy there is mass.
He didn't need to.
Emmy Nether had already told us that. the combination of energy/ mass is strictly conserved (except at the start  and end of time).
If you insist that there is mass in any energy
It happens regardless of anyone insisting on anything. It's nothing to do with me; I'm just the messenger here.

In any case, based on the BBT theory the energy in the first pure energy could only create particles with relativistic mass but with zero rest mass.
It does not matter how often you try to pretend that pair production can't happen; it still happened.
I can prove that.
We are here.

As the BBT energy can't be EM ...
Who said it can't?
Though it doesn't really matter much. we know that energy is quantised even if it's energy associated with the other forces.. I already pointed this out.

There was energy
That energy must have been in some combination of the 4 fundamental forces.
Those forces only exist by virtue of force carries- the photon, which carries the EM force, is the best known.
So if there was EM energy there were photons.


It really would be better if you paid attention.



You are surly
Not especially
surly
/ˈsəːli/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
bad-tempered and unfriendly.
"the porter left with a surly expression"..


aware about all of that information.
Yes I am, and it would be much better if you were also properly informed about it.
Please learn some science. That way you might stop making silly mistakes like those I have highlighted above.

What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?
Is it 100%?
Yes.

If you think otherwise, please show us examples (real ones- not the nonsense you have posted so far)

Do we know why the BBT energy could set a pair production while the energy today can't set that process any more?
We know that it can.
#It's just that you don't understand it- see above,.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 14:33:17
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:15
If you insist that there is mass in any energy
It happens regardless of anyone insisting on anything. It's nothing to do with me; I'm just the messenger here.
So please show us how the energy of our current universe transformed into real positive particale pair.

It's the same pair production process that we can observe in a lab today.
Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.
Why our scientists do not observe the biggest real mighty lab in the Universe, which is the accretion disc of the SMBH?
So why our scientists claim that the SMBH EM energy can't transformed into real positive pair particles today?

 
Emmy Nether had already told us that. the combination of energy/ mass is strictly conserved (except at the start  and end of time).
You miss the whole idea of Emmy Nether.
I have told you before and you still don't understand it.


It does not matter how often you try to pretend that pair production can't happen; it still happened.
I can prove that.
We are here.
We are here, but not due to the BBT.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:15
What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?
Is it 100%?
Yes.
If you think otherwise, please show us examples (real ones- not the nonsense you have posted so far)

As long as you don't know what was there before the Big Bang, then you can't know for sure what was there after the bang.

Why don't you answer the following?


So, let me ask you some questions about "evidence"

1. Space expansion:
Where is the evidence for space expansion? You personally told me that we only see expansion of the galaxies. So why do we claim that we observe the space expansion?

2. CMBR
CMBR doesn't give any evidence for the BBT.
It is a microwave radiation that comes from all directions at almost the same amplitude and therefore it represents the whole Universe.
So, why that CMBR doesn't represent the radiation from the entire Universe around us?
Why do we insist to use it only for the BBT story?

3. Redshift
Don't you agree that redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity?
So why do we twist the real meaning of redshift when it comes to BBT?

4. SMBH Accretion disc
Do we see the ultra strong light (Photons) that is ejected from the accretion disc?
Do we see the particles at the accretion disc that are moving at almost at the speed of light?
So, why can't we believe that what we see are actually new created particles?
Why do we reject the clear message from Einstein that new particles are created at our current Universe in order to compensate the matter/galaxies that are drifting away?
Why only the BBT can create new particles while we reject the particles creation activity that we clearly see in front of our eyes?

5. Falling stars into the accretion disc
So far we didn't find any evidence for any falling matter/ gas cloud or stars into the accretion disc of our SMBH.
On the contrary. We ONLY see matter that ejected from the accretion disc. We clearly see that ultra long molecular get stream (27,000LY) that is ejected upwards/downwards from the poles of the SMBH at almost the 0.8 c.
Why do we insist that this matter in an outcome of a falling star instead of new created matte, while the evidence tells us that no star is falling in and we only see matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH.
So why do we reject the clear evidence that we see?

6. SMBH size
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how all the SMBH in our Universe had been created. The most difficult issue for them is how a young massive galaxies that are located at almost 13 BLY away could establish their SMBH size in so short time after the BBT.
Why they reject the idea that a SMBH/BH should be able to generate the mass that is needed for itself as the mass that is needed for its own galaxy?
Think about the efficiency of that real pair particle production process of our Universe.
One particle is falling into the SMBH and increases its mass, while the other particle is drifting outwards to the accretion disc and would be used later on to form new star.
The efficiency of the pair production in this process is 100%, while based on the BBT - the efficiency was less than 0.00..1% as most of the new particles pair had been eliminated at the same moment of their creation.

7. Curvature in space
Do you confirm that our scientists do not observe any sort of curvature in space?
Hence, there is no evidence for curvature in our Universe space. So why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that there is curvature in the space?

So please
Would you kindly use real observations and real evidences for our Universe theory instead of imagination ideas as the BBT?

Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 14:42:50
Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.
Page 6 here
https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/study/current/undergraduate/lecture-notes/py1t10/JFSTR10.pdf
Shows a photograph of pair production from 1932

Why don't you learn some science?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 14:44:34
You miss the whole idea of Emmy Nether.
I have told you before and you still don't understand it.
You don't understand it any more than you understood pair production- which is to say you don't understand it at all.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 14:45:11
Why don't you answer the following?
Because there's no point.
You do not pay attention.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 14:46:15
As long as you don't know what was there before the Big Bang, then you can't know for sure what was there after the bang.
That's just silly, isn't it?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 15:51:38
Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.
Page 6 here
https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/study/current/undergraduate/lecture-notes/py1t10/JFSTR10.pdf
Shows a photograph of pair production from 1932
Why don't you learn some science?
Actually it is about a "Production of an electron-positron pair in a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber (Anderson 1932)".
However, it is still good example as it is stated that:
"2. Creation of particles
Mass-Energy equivalence suggests that it may be possible to create new particles."
So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 16:37:24
The grown ups do accept pair production- that picture proves that it happens.
Only you say it's impossible.
Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.
The reason you got it so wrong is that you refuse to do one thing.
Learn some science.


.
So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?
They are.
But they are not created "from nothing", which is what you seem to want to happen.
Title: Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/01/2021 17:37:25
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 15:51:38
So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?
They are.
But they are not created "from nothing", which is what you seem to want to happen.
We do not discuss about new pair creation out of nothing.
For the last few weeks we focus on the BBT idea of creating matter from existing energy.
If you agree that today new positive mass pair particles should be created in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein from existing energy, then you have just solved the enigma of the Universe.
If you reject this idea for today then you also should reject this idea or the early BBT time.
If based on your BBT imagination the energy of the early Universe could form new particle pair then it is your obligation to explain why the energy of today can't do the same.
There must be one law to energy.
As you wish to believe that energy means mass, then at any stage of the Universe that message should be correct.
If that message isn't correct for today then it can't be correct also for the early BBT time.

Therefore, as long as you consider that matter could ONLY be created by the BBT energy, then this BBT should be set in the garbage.
I'm not going to waste my t