0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
"Six feet from the end of my nose " defines a region, but doesn't need a wall.
Because the wavelength increases as the space stretches.Longer wavelengths correspond to cooler radiation.
The skin of the nose is the wall.
So, assuming that the skin gives 100% isolation/protection from outside
Hence, theoretically, if the skin could set a perfect isolation, we could claim that our body is located inside a black box.
However, as any black box must have walls around it, than it proves that there is a fatal error in the BBT.
This is absolutely none realistic.
Sorry, our scientists can't assume something and contradict it by other assumption/verification.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/10/2020 09:07:56Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Nothing; not even space.
I wonder how a person that consider himself as a scientist can claim that Nothing; not even space exists outside our Universe,
Universe, while in the same token he confirms that there are other Universes outside our universe.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.
Well, we have already deeply discussed this issue.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:08:10relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.There is no evidence for that.On the contrary, when tested on every scale relativity works.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:08:10relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.
Please look at the following starting formula for general relativity:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity"spacetime is assumed to be four-dimensional, each index on a tensor can be one of four values. Hence, the total number of elements a tensor possesses equals 4R, where R is the count of the number of covariant {\displaystyle (b_{i})}(b_{i}) and contravariant {\displaystyle (a_{i})}(a_{i}) indices on the tensor, {\displaystyle r+s}{\displaystyle r+s} (a number called the rank of the tensor)."Then it is stated:"Some physical quantities are represented by tensors not all of whose components are independent. Important examples of such tensors include symmetric and antisymmetric tensors. Antisymmetric tensors are commonly used to represent rotations (for example, the vorticity tensor).Although a generic rank R tensor in 4 dimensions has 4R components, constraints on the tensor such as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components. For example, a symmetric rank two tensor and possesses 10 independent components, whereas an antisymmetric (skew-symmetric) rank two tensor and has 6 independent components. For ranks greater than two, the symmetric or antisymmetric index pairs must be explicitly identified.Antisymmetric tensors of rank 2 play important roles in relativity theory. The set of all such tensors - often called bivectors - forms a vector space of dimension 6, sometimes called bivector space."So, first they use the "rank R tensor in 4 dimensions" so it "has 4R componentsWhy in some vectors they claim for 6 or 10 components/dimension?The question is can we use it at higher dimension? So did we give up on some components/dimension?Then it is stated: "as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components"Could it be that those symmetry or antisymmetry components are not fully identical up to the infinity?So, my impression is that they have give up on some components that have very minor impact on the whole formula.Therefore, it has almost no negative impact on large scale.That leads to the excellent formula of general relativity.However, as we use that formula at very small scale the impact on the missing components are very critical.Therefore, the outcome in the mathematics is singularity.I'm quite sure that if we will add all the missing components we won't get any singularity at a very small scale as there is no error in the mathematics.Conclusion - the singularity that we get from general relativity is based on the missing components. Therefore, this formula shouldn't be used in small scale.Hence, there is no room for singularity in our real life.We must use QM at that scale which fully contradicts the idea of singularity.
Could it be that your mission is to extend the life of the BBT as long as possible and kick out any idea which contradicts it under any situation?
In reality, every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct to the limits of the precision of the measurement.
If you could demonstrate that relativity was wrong, you would suddenly become the most famous physicist of the century.
It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it.
Do we really see/observe the singularity at a very small scale?Do we really see/observe the end/edge of the observable Universe or the entire Universe?.
If not, how can you claim that "every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct".
OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no to answer this.Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Do you confirm that there are missing components in the relativity formula?
1. Relativity - There are missing components in this formula2. Dark matter - There is no evidence/observation for dark matter. Without dark energy we can't explain the orbital velocity in the spiral galaxy3. Dark energy - There is no evidence/observation for dark energy. Without the dark energy we can't explain the requested negative gravity that is needed to boost the expansion at the very far end locations.4. Negative mass - There is no evidence for negative mass. Without negative mass the idea of hawking radiation is just incorrect.5. Magnetic field - Do you agree that without magnetic field there is no possibility to generate any sort of quark or particle.
It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it.I'm just trying to stamp out nonsense like yours.
You have got an answer for this question.In my answer I have stated that there is an error in the relativity formula due to missing components.Those missing components are the base for the relativity formula error in infinity small scale and infinity large scale.So, if you think that this is incorrect, then why you didn't answer my question:
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:32:45OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no to answer this.Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
the mission of your life is defending the BBT.
It's not.That's just silly.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:39:16Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:32:45OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no to answer this.Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51What would you see in the night sky of that model universe?Well, we have already deeply discussed this issue.Unfortunately, you clearly don't remember that.So, let me tell you the following.There is no problem with the night sky paradox as relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.The missing components in the starting formula of relativity leads to those errors.Therefore, in very small scale - THERE IS NO singularity in our universe.Not for any BH and not even for the Big Bang itself.In the same token, in very large scale - THRE IS NO curvature in our Universe.Therefore, if we go all the way to the left we will stay at the left up to the infinity.The idea that as we go to the left we might come from the right due to the curvature in our universe is totally incorrect.Hence, the relativity velocity formula fails to work when it comes to a very far away space-time or location. When galaxy at the very far end location is moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location, at some point (location & velocity) its light wouldn't get to us any more.So, we get the light only from those galaxies that are located up to a distance D (assuming that at any direction there is the same correlation between velocity to distance...).Hence, our real Universe is infinite while the location of light that we can still get is finite (D).Therefore, if we could go to a galaxy that is located at 100BLY, One Trillion LY or even one Million of trillion LY away from us (at any direction) we would see there a similar space view as we see in our current location.The CMB there would be identical and it would also carry the same Black body radiation.However, at those far end locations we won't be able to get any light from the Milky Way galaxy.Conclusion:When we look at any direction, we all must agree that there are infinite galaxies up to the infinity in that single line direction. However, the light that we can get to our location from those galaxies is limited (D) based on distance/velocity of the galaxies. As we all know the further away the galaxy is located the faster away it is moving. Hence we can actually get the light only from limited no of galaxies (up to distance D) in that infinite long line.Hence, although there are infinite galaxies in each line directions, we can get/observe the light only from a finite no of galaxies (up to D). Therefore, there is no room for the night sky paradox.Is it finally clear to you by now?I hope that after jumping from point to point, you don't have an intention to do it again...
As you have got an answer, why do you keep asking the same question?
Would the CMBR in that model universe look like the CMBR in our universe?Please point out where you answered the question meaningfully by either saying "yes" or saying "no".
You may find reality to be informative.https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/black-hole-star-space-tidal-disruption-event-telescope-b988845.html?fbclid=IwAR2tFSuTOcfo2tylgONNfqjhOJjZqIzRhoAKOoZmPzNwhdfJ8zYp4Sg0huo