0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form, it was opaque.When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37How could it be that we get the radiation from T1 (when the radiation carry BBR) and not before or after that time when the Universe has no BBR?There was radiation before but, because teh universe was opaque, it couldn't reach us.There has been radiation since, and it does reach us- for example, sunlight.But the light that was set free when most of opaque plasma of the electrons and protons combined to form transparent atoms of hydrogen is what we see today as the CMBR.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37How could it be that we get the radiation from T1 (when the radiation carry BBR) and not before or after that time when the Universe has no BBR?
hot plasmas are opaque.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come backNoBecause the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out.There's obviously nothing for it to bounce off so there's obviously no way it would come back to us.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come back
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37How could it be that we get the radiation from T1 (when the radiation carry BBR) and not before or after that time when the Universe has no BBR?There was radiation before but, because teh universe was opaque, it couldn't reach us.There has been radiation since, and it does reach us- for example, sunlight.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37So, the idea that we get today a "ring of bell" from a very specific time of the Universe (T1) is just unrealistic.It's perfectly realistic, but it's clear that you don't understand it.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/10/2020 16:47:37So, the idea that we get today a "ring of bell" from a very specific time of the Universe (T1) is just unrealistic.
You didn't like my answers, so let's focus on the main issues:
Actually, based on the BBT, after the bang the matter was mass less. The meaning of that matter is radiation. So, based on the BBT process, the radiation was there from the first moment.
The assumption that "the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out might be incorrect as we clearly know that the formula of the expansion is not based on the expansion of light.If that was the case, than you have to invent other cosmological constant.That shows how the BBT works. When you need a cosmological constant to explain one issue you set its value, while for other issue you don't even think about it.Therefore, as you claim that the expansion was/is always at the speed of light - then please prove it by the chosen constant value (if you can..).
So, you confirm that there was radiation before and after that T1 time.
The idea that we get that ring of bell just from that specific time (T1) of the Universe is absolutely not realistic as even at the first moment after the bang there was already radiation in the Universe.
Now, can you please explain how at any location in the entire universe that same "ring of bell" from that early universe (t1) gets CONSTANTLY forever and ever.
Is there any possibility that at some point in the whole universe there will be different radiation?
Why the radiation after or before that time can't get to any place in the Universe.
Why Only from that moment, to any location and forever and ever?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07Now, please answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
If I were you, Bored Chemist, I would refuse to answer any further questions from Dave until he answers your question as well. Fair is fair, right?
It's everywhere because the BB happened "everywhere".
And, as the universe cooled, it formed matter- a plasma- which was opaque and trapped the primordial radiation, cooling it down to form BBR at about the temperature of hydrogen recombination.That's why we don't see that primordial radiation.
So, Let's summarize why the BBT is totally unrealistic:1. More matter than antimatterThe number of the created particles should be identical to the no of the antiparticles in the process of the pair production.This is real physics. There is no other alternative. Therefore, after the annihilated process not even a single particle would survive. Hence, there are no particles to be used for our Universe. Hence, the BBT is not relevant.2. The energy for the Big BangUntil now our scientists couldn't show the real source for the BBT energy. Even if we agree that some particles survive in a ratio of one to one billion as Lawrence Krauss had stated, then this first energy should carry at least one billion more energy than the total energy in our whole Universe. This is absolutely ridicules that all of that energy which equivalent for the energy of one Billion universes as ours would came out of nothing.3. Magnetic field for the Pair production processAs I have already proved by real articles, the pair production works ONLY under magnetic field. Therefore, Even if you get for free the whole unrealistic energy that is equal to one billion of the total energy in our universe, not even a single particle pair would be created without the transformation of magnetic field. Our scientists do not claim for magnetic field, therefore, the theory that some matter/antimatter could be created by the big bang is also none realistic.4. SingularityOur scientists claim for singularity at the first moment of the Big Bang. However, when it comes to a NH or a SMBH, they are very sure that those BH would stay at their singularity shape forever and ever. Hence, there is no way for a matter in the singularity space to break outwards. If that is correct, then this should be applicable also for the BBT first moment. If some energy or even almost infinite energy) came out of nothing in a singularity point and set matter, that matter wouldn't be able to break out of that singularity never and ever.Therefore, at the maximum, that Big Bang could create a BH or a SSSSupper massive BH.5. Space expansionOur scientists have totally failed to explain why there was no space before the bang and why only after the bang the space had started to expand. This must be supported by a specific physics law. How could we even assume that there was no space at the early time? Are we in a position to claim that there was no space before the Bang? do we have any way to prove it? If so, please show the articles and the math that supports the idea that there was no space before the Bang. That idea by itself contradicts the basic element of physics Time & space. If you take out the existence of time and space, then you actually kill the physics.6. Inflation -This is one of the biggest mysteries in the BBT. Even if we accept all the unrealistic five points that I had offered, then why suddenly the early Universe will expand at so high velocity (billion times the speed of light). We know there is no way to set a process without external energy. So, where the energy for the inflation came from. Even if we get that unrealistic energy for the inflation, why suddenly it stopped from billion times the speed of light to the speed of light or less? The momentum law would tell us that if something is move at a fixed velocity, it won't reduce its velocity without external force. So, what kind of force or energy could stop the inflation?The idea of the inflation came by Alan Guth just in order to keep the BBT alive.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_GuthWithout the inflation the BBT is just useless:"Guth's first step to developing his theory of inflation occurred at Cornell in 1978, when he attended a lecture by Robert Dicke about the flatness problem of the universe.[9] Dicke explained how the flatness problem showed that something significant was missing from the Big Bang theory at the time. The fate of the universe depended on its density. If the density of the universe was large enough, it would collapse into a singularity, and if the actual density of the matter in the cosmos was lower than the critical density, the universe would increasingly get much bigger."Actually, the following explanation proves why the BBT and the inflation idea are totally irrelevant:"Two weeks later, Guth heard colleagues discussing something called the horizon problem. 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."Sorry - even if you wish to keep the life of the BBT, there is no way to accelerate the expansion in space (which by itself is not realistic) by billion times the speed of light and then stop it just because it is not needed any more. The Inflation is clearly unrealistic story.The following message is also very interesting:"Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed"So, In order to set the inflation Alen Knew that it must start with less matter. At that time our scientists assume that our universe was very compact. Even so, Allen knew that the inflation can't carry all of that matter at billion times the speed of light. So, he hoped for less matter.Now that we know that the universe is much bigger than our early estimation, we have to go back to the inflation idea and revivify if this idea is still applicable
I have answered all his questions, but he insist to ask it again.
Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07Now, please answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
How can you think that is happened everywhere while our scientists claim that the BBT starts from singularity?
No; you have not answered it.It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).
You are failing to understand the difference between the BBT which is a real theory about how the actual Universe cme to be like it is and this "toy" model that I have been asking you about for over a week (and which you have been ignoring)Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/10/2020 20:02:31Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form, it was opaque.When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?I'm hoping you are not going to take another six months to answer that.Either you accept that it looks like what we see or you explain what it would look like and why it would be different.Remember, this is a purely hypothetical universe, so there is no option for saying anything about its age.I told you it's 14 billion years old.I told you that it expanded nd so on.And, since it's my "model" universe those facts are true.What would you see in the night sky?What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form, it was opaque.When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?I'm hoping you are not going to take another six months to answer that.Either you accept that it looks like what we see or you explain what it would look like and why it would be different.Remember, this is a purely hypothetical universe, so there is no option for saying anything about its age.I told you it's 14 billion years old.I told you that it expanded nd so on.And, since it's my "model" universe those facts are true.What would you see in the night sky?
I should refuse to answer any of your questions until you answer that one of mine (with a yes or a no),.
No; you have not answered it.It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/10/2020 20:03:44Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07Now, please answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
If you want answers to the questions you posed, learn some science.
It's not my job to teach you.
But, there's only one person I can ask about your opinion on this; so I will keep asking you.
However, unfortunately you can't offer this information as you clearly don't know.
Do you mean that I should learn science from someone who doesn't know even the size of its toy Universe?
the size of the universe doesn't matter much- you could have picked a value but, let's go with "the size of the real observable universe".
the size of the universe doesn't matter much
The interesting thing about science; it doesn't matter whom you learn it from. If it's science then it's science.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:45:22No; you have not answered it.It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/10/2020 20:03:44Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07Now, please answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.
However, as you don't care about its current size, you clearly don't care about real science.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:32:26So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.Do you understand why I'm calling it a "toy"?What you have "proved" is something everyone but you already knew. You proved that a toy is not real.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:32:26So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.
Were you expecting a Nobel prize for that?
I know enough about the science to know what the effect of the size is.And I know that it does not greatly affect the outcome; it doesn't change the background radiation much- it only affects one parameter and that's easy to allow for.
it doesn't change the background radiation much- it only affects one parameter and that's easy to allow for.
I don't care much about the size of a toy.Well, yes.But that clearly has nothing to do with my views on science, does it?
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.
I have proved that a toy universe in the size of the observable Universe is not real.
Anyone who claims that the size (any size -even if it is airplane or Universe) "does not greatly affect the outcome" can't be considered as designer or scientist.How could you claim such unrealistic statement?
You don't care about the size of our real universe as at any selected size we would have to kill the BBT.
So, when you ask me to learn BBT "science", please ask to learn the BBT story.
You have clearly got the answer for that:
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
Starting from this moment we need to set the following distinguish between real science to your "views on science".
Because I can look at the data from yesterday
The universe has expanded since yesterday, but it still looks pretty much the same.
That's obviously wrong.The BBT is not "killed" by the observation of the size of the universe.On the contrary, it's largely because we know the size, that we know when there was a bang,
Sorry - can you please answer what is the current size of the Universe?Yes Or No?If yes - please set the number!
However, do you agree that if we would find (today or in the future) that this number is incorrect, then the whole BBT would be set in the garbage?
How could it be that the expanding universe would look the same at any given moment?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:23:47You have clearly got the answer for that:OK, to be fair, you did sort of answer the question.I missed it because you buried it in some irrelevant stuff.You finally, after several weeks, answered the question.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:23:47You have clearly got the answer for that:
about 93 billion light-yearsYou do know that you could have googled that, don't you?
Now, let's see you address the fact that your recent post contradicts your first post- the one in which you set the foundations of "theory D"
So, I presume you will now accept that your starting point for "Theory D" is wrong,and that it's wrong anyway because it requires a breach of the laws of physics and- as you say.
"Theory D" requires (among other things) a break in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago.It also requires that we ignore Olber's paradox- which showed that "theory D" was wrong even longer ago.
You even agree with me.
If the BBT can set an energy and convert it to matter, why theory D can't use the same idea?
So, would you kindly explain why theory D "breaks in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago" while BBT doesn't break it?
So, theory D starts with the same concept as the BBT.