0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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?

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

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.

please post a quote so I can explain either that you misunderstood or that I mistyped something.

The size of the universe is very critical.So, as it is your toy universe, than I agree - let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.Therefore, R = 46 BLY.Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:The Total volume for R is ref to R^3Hence,V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3HenceThe chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:34^3/46^3 = 29.8%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.So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic. This also shows that the size of the universe is very critical.

QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 22/10/2020 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 22/10/2020 21:32:26So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.

The proof of energy/ mass conservation is derived from a symmetry of the universe- specifically that the universe is symmetrical in time.At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.

But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.This was already explained to you.

According to you, "Theory D" starts with something which, according to you, is not true.You need to fix that or ditch it.

That is an interesting analysis .But it is addressing the wrong question. (It's also wrong, but that's a different issue)

It's also wrong,

Well, I have proved that a Universe in a size of 92 BLY is not real.

while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.

It could be a Tiny BH or a massive BH, but it surly can't be the whole matter/energy in the entire Universe.This idea is absolutely not realistic.

Are you being deliberately stupid?Post a quote of something I said that led you to the inaccurate conclusion that

Let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.Therefore, R = 46 BLY.Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:The Total volume for R is ref to R^3Hence,V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3HenceThe chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:34^3/46^3 = 29.8%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.

QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:55:56while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.No, it is not.As we have explained.Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".This was pointed out to you before.Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:55:56while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.

Let me remind you:Theory D doesn't break any physical law.

We all agree that the first object after the Bang could be created out of Nothing.

Why is it so important if we call that Universe a Toy Universe, observable Universe or even BC Universe?

Yes or No?

Now do you agree that due to its EM and gravity, it can generate new particle pairs (Both with positive mass and negative polarity)?

Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?

WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?

Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.That's not zero.So you have not proved that it is wrong.

If you look at a distant black wall on a foggy day, you don't see the wall, you see the fog.If you look at the edge of the universe, you don't see the edge, you see the CMBR.

So, if you can't set that basic math, how could you dare to ask me the following?Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:59:29WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?

At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.This was already explained to you.

As we have explained.Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".This was pointed out to you before.Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 29/09/2020 03:53:25please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/10/2020 05:27:40I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.

It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 15:02:32It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then lease offer the correct math.So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.

QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:26Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 15:02:32It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then please offer the correct math.So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.Sure the correct maths is this"By inspection; not zero".

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:26Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 15:02:32It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then please offer the correct math.So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.