1

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: Yesterday at 22:05:01 »

That is incorrect as the density of matter in our real infinite universe is fixed over time.

Not according to the Big Bang theory, it isn't.

This could be correct ONLY if you shrink the observable Universe while there is no change in all infinite universe outside that observable universe.

Not so. All areas of the Universe would shrink more or less equally.

So, how we prove that only the Observable Universe shrinks?

There's no need to.

Now do you think that as we go further and further back in time, the Universe M could shrink to zero (or close to zero) in just 13.8 BY?

Possibly. It depends on the maximum possible density (whether or not that density is infinite). Universe M would have been an awful lot smaller at the Big Bang either way.

If not, then as the total Universe is infinitely-large at this point, it would still be infinite even if we shrink it by go back 13.8BY in time.

That was my entire point. It demonstrates how the Universe as a whole can be infinitely large at the moment of the Big Bang even though our observable Universe was still incredibly tiny.

2

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 16/05/2022 21:41:26 »

So, how that "gravitational singularity, a billionth the size of a nuclear particle" could suddenly be considered as Infinite space without breaking the BBT theory?
We also know that there is no empty space with no energy. Therefore, if the Universe started off with an infinite size then by definition it should have some sort of energy.

That does seem counter-intuitive at first, but a singularity of zero size would have made reference to our observable Universe, not the Universe as a whole. To help you understand, consider looking at it backwards through time. You start off with a universe of infinite size, with roughly the same (low) density everywhere. Our observable Universe is a sphere of limited size within this larger Universe. As you go further back in time, the density of all matter increases and the "bubble" that represents our observable Universe gets smaller. However, the Universe as a whole is still remains infinitely large because no degree of shrinkage can change that. So as you go further and further back in time, our observable Universe continues to shrink until it shrinks to zero (or close to zero) size at the moment of the Big Bang. The total Universe is still infinitely-large at this point, however. It's just that the density everywhere is infinite (or at least very, very high).

3

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 14/05/2022 21:54:15 »

I would like to remind you that if the universe is infinite, then by definition its age must be infinite.

Not so. If the Universe started off with an infinite size, then it would presumably still be infinite in size even if its age is finite. Let's not confuse the total Universe with the observable Universe. The observable Universe can have a finite size while the Universe as a whole can potentially have (and always have had) an infinite size.

4

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 13/05/2022 09:38:31 »

Once you make a change in the theory - you must make a change in the name.

Please provide an authoritative source that backs this claim up. I'm not aware of any organization of scientists that stated this.

5

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 13/05/2022 00:17:18 »

Real theory can set only one mechanism.

Provably wrong. In chemistry, for example, there are many different mechanisms that can form water. You can create it by burning hydrocarbons, through the joining of two monosaccharide molecules into a disaccharide, through the fermentation of glucose, through the reaction of a base with an acid, and so on. So there are many different mechanisms that can get you the same result.

Nowhere does the Big Bang theory state that black holes can only form through one mechanism (like the collapse of a single star). If you disagree, then provide an authoritative source that backs up your claim that the Big Bang does only allow one such mechanism.

6

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 12/05/2022 08:07:48 »

No, there is no different mechanism

How do you know that?

7

New Theories / Re: Does an Emitting Particle Contain the Emitted Particle?

« on: 07/05/2022 07:20:26 »

in my model there is no reason why an electron cannot contain a photon.

Why would it, though?

8

New Theories / Re: Wave Equation Of The Universe

« on: 03/05/2022 02:06:26 »

What does \Box? mean?

9

New Theories / Re: Does an Emitting Particle Contain the Emitted Particle?

« on: 02/05/2022 20:30:37 »

An atomic nucleus is a conglomerate of many particles. Some particles, like baryons, are composed of simpler particles called quarks. As far as experiments can currently tell, however, other particles like electrons aren't made up of anything simpler.

10

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 23/04/2022 05:47:58 »

It looks like Dave is turning this into a duplicate topic of his Big Bang threads. Would that count as derailment here?

11

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does the IVO thruster violate Newton's third law?

« on: 21/04/2022 17:30:18 »

I'd say I've never heard of it. Can you provide a link?

12

New Theories / Re: The theory of the human body special mass

« on: 19/04/2022 16:34:17 »

Because I try as hard as I can but nobody understands or accepts

We understand it just fine. What you are claiming is impossible.

13

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 18/04/2022 01:10:24 »

Just a brief example:
Let's assume that you are a jet eng. designer.
You had been asked to design a jet engine for an airplane.
However, you have no clue about the size and the total requested load of this airplane.
Can you do it successfully?
Don't you agree that a get engine for 100Kg should be different from a jet for 1,000,000,000 Tons?
Maybe for that kind of load a jet engine is not good enough.
So how could it be that we have any sort of theory for a universe without any knowledge about its total size?

That's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be: I don't have to know how many islands exist in order to test whether or not volcanism is a viable mechanism for producing an island.

How could it be that the science community don't care about the size of the universe.

I'm sure they care about it, but that doesn't matter because it may simply be impossible to know either way.

To my best understanding, we didn't discover any sort of curvature in space.
If that is correct then it proves that there is no limit for our Universe.
No limit means - infinite.

All measurement have limits of precision. So there is still room for the Universe to be curved, but at a level too small to currently be measured.

At least - do you agree that there is a possibility that the Universe is infinite?
If so, do you estimate that the BBT - as is - fits also to the infinite Universe?
Can you really set infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?

Yes to all three.

14

General Science / Re: Do we have the ability to grasp the essence?

« on: 17/04/2022 14:23:21 »

is it  possible to say what the water itself is regardless of how our senses perceive it?

Well, water is water, regardless of its phase.

Or can it actually be said that we have no attainment in essence?

I think there may be a language barrier here, but I'm not sure what you mean by "attainment in essence".

15

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 17/04/2022 14:19:53 »

Is it finite or infinite???

Unknown and possibly unknowable.

Do you also agree that Bogie_smiles should get a reward for his understanding that the Universe is Infinite?

I don't think he's provided any kind of new, compelling evidence for that.

16

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 16/04/2022 18:00:31 »

This example represents an ideal Universe without any sort of heat/energy dissipation.

In other words, the real Universe. Where do you think the heat goes? It doesn't just disappear. It just goes to a different location in this same Universe.

I claim that in order to get that kind of infinite activity there is a need for external energy.

A claim that is wrong due to the first law of thermodynamics.

However, when you add the impact of gravity - then you actually add new free force that can add new energy.

No, no it cannot. This was one of those false claims I was talking about when I was referring to your Theory D thread being closed.

He calls it: "the gravitational wave" and I like that name.

Gravitational waves are not tidal forces nor are they just gravity. They are their own, distinct phenomenon. Gravitational waves are to gravity what electromagnetic waves (such as light) are to electromagnetic fields.

In any case, if you don't want me to participate in this discussion - I would stop.

That's entirely up to you. If you start repeating the same nonsense arguments as you did in your Theory D thread (such as gravity being able to create new energy, orbiting objects always drifting outwards, the Big Bang not being able to account for an infinite universe, etc.) then I will, indeed, ask you to stop replying to this thread.

17

New Theories / Re: A message to the University of Cambridge

« on: 16/04/2022 00:44:22 »

This has become a clone of the other thread about the same subject. As such, I'm merging them.

18

New Theories / Re: A message to the University of Cambridge

« on: 15/04/2022 17:51:02 »

Why at least exerting tiny effort to do my experiments?

Would you accept the results if the experiment proved you wrong?

19

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 15/04/2022 17:33:12 »

As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.

That's not how that works. Stars may lose mass, but that lost mass still exists in the Universe in the form of particles. The Universe does not lose mass just because stars lose mass.

New energy should come from somewhere.

Not according to the first law of thermodynamics.

I see that you are trying to sneak in a lot of the same controversial statements that you have used in your Theory D discussion. You may not be mentioning Theory D by name, but you are definitely dancing around it.

20

New Theories / Re: The theory of the human body special mass

« on: 13/04/2022 16:34:29 »

It is simple. No magical scales are needed. It is just a matter of calculations:
A human weight is 60 kg doesn't change. Water weight is 1 kg doesn't change. The scale shows 61 kg, water weight plus human weight. He lifts his body alone before drinking water with x kgf and 1 kg mass needs 1 kgf to be lifted . So the force to  lift both after drinking is x+1 kgf The scale will change from first measurement 61 kg to 61+(x+1) kg, the force he lifts his body with x+1 kgf plus the first read 61 kgf.

All of the mass in your body used to be in the form of non-living material (food, water, and perhaps surgical implants if you have them). Please explain how that matter somehow magically requires less force to lift merely because its atoms have been arranged into the form of living tissue.