0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.
There is no edge to the Universe
I was mostly interested in pointing out that you don't know the science you are arguing against. (You pick and choose what science you accept, and build long chains of reasoning based on your own ideas, but portrayed as though they are obvious and accepted.)
I'm not interested in discussing the size or shape of the Universe with you. I've seen that's pointless.
No; he didn't.
No, it isn't.
No, you don't.
Have you done your homework yet?What does "finite but unbounded" mean?Can you give an example?
A combination of monumental bloodymindedness, and the desire to see that nonsense doesn't get the last word on science sites.
...First you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded":Quote from: pzkpfw on 28/10/2020 22:52:30 current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Now you claim that the Universe has no edge:Quote from: pzkpfw on 29/10/2020 20:20:27There is no edge to the Universe...
I was pointing out that current science says there is no edge to the Universe (it is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded", both of those possibilities have no edge).
...
Meanwhile, why don't you educate yourself on what the current science is? Do the homework that Bored chemist suggests?This way, you can argue against science, instead of straw men.
On the Other hand as you claim that the Universe could be "finite but unbounded" or "have no edge" you actually contradict the BBT.
You improve yourself!
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 20:17:19Have you done your homework yet?What does "finite but unbounded" mean?Can you give an example?
Have you done your homework yet?What does "finite but unbounded" mean?Can you give an example?Have you googled it yet?
the Earth's surface is finite but unbounded and has no edge.
I was pointing out that current science says there is no edge to the Universe
either infinite
However, I have deeply explained why there is no way to get a curvature in a 3D space.
For you the BBT Theory is the base for any sort of real science.
Therefore, any science law/prove/statement that contradicts the BBT should be eliminated ASAP.
However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/10/2020 08:50:15If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address thisQuote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09So, once againQuote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).You saidQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The 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.but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
My aim is to toss out stuff that does not make sense.
I'd like you to answer this- which refers to a toy universe- not the BBT.
I'm not actually all that bothered about the BBT.If someone actually showed that it was wrong, I wouldn't care.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:11:41However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.But that's not my aim.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:11:41However, as long as your mission is to kick out any message that contradicts the BBT even if it is 100% correct from real science prospective, the discussion with you is just useless.
Any idea that contradicts either the laws of physics, or itself, is wrong and so it should be dropped without further consideration.
How can you set the BBT and Sense in the same line?
We discuss now on the size of the Universe.
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.
Well, if this isn't your aim as you say, then why do you refuse to tell us what is the size of the Universe based on this Theory?
Why do you refuse to evaluate the size of BBT' universe based on real law of physics?
You are deeply bothered about the BBT and you really care about it!!!
It is your obligation to offer the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
Actually, do you confirm that in order to support the BBT, new set of "physics law" had been developed especially for that BBT?
Please don't use a toy universe for a size,
Can you tell us what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT.Yes Or NO???
Your tactics are very clear to all of us.
and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.
Why do you insist to offer that toy Universe when it comes to size instead of discussing the real size of our universe?
Once we agree on that
I'm focusing now on the size of the Universe.
So, before we even set a theory - we MUST understand the size of Universe for this theory.
Therefore, you are using "Toy" universe when you discuss on size:
don't answer a question by question and don't jump to other issue.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/10/2020 16:08:22Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/10/2020 08:50:15If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address thisQuote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09So, once againQuote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).You saidQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The 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.but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?
QuoteOKYou made a claim about the size of the universe.You said thisQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The 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.And I pointed out that you are wrongThe CMBR is not an indication that the Universe is infinite.I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.So you cannot say that the CMBR shows that space is infinite.And since you base Theory D on the idea that the CMBR tells you something, but the CMBR does not tell you that thing, Theory D is based on something which is not true.
OKYou made a claim about the size of the universe.You said thisQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The 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.
I pointed out that it would look the same in a model universe that was finite in time and extent.
I don't tell you what BBT tells you about the universe's size because the thread isn't about the BBT.Incidentally, you have it backwardsThe observations of the universe tell us what the BBT should be, rather than the other way round.
Can you tell us what is the size of the Universe based on the BBT.Yes Or NO???I insist to get a clear size for the real Universe based on the BBT (assuming that it is a theory for the Universe)If you can't give a size for our Universe based on that BBT - and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.Once we agree on that we can move on to any question which you might have.
As the BBR radiation in the CMBR is a vital indication for an infinite Universe.
Your understanding about the BBR is not based on real science. It is based on imagination and wishful list.
So, please read it again:"An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example)."
However, If we eliminate the envelope around the infinite Universe - the BBR would be eliminated.
Hence, ONLY a Infinite Universe could carry a Black body radiation without any need for an envelope around it.
The real science doesn't cover that kind of imagination.
Therefore, if for the BBT you need a model universe that was finite in time and extent then this model is non realistic and not part of any BBR explanation. Hence, the whole BBT should be set in the garbage.
This thread is all about real science
In any case, A theory for a Universe without a clear estimation for its size can't be consider as a theory or even as an idea.
In all your long answer you can't specify the size of the Universe based on the BBT.
The BBT without a universe size should be set in the garbage.
If you can't give a size for our Universe based on that BBT - and as you "don't care about it" then we all should agree that this BBT should be set in the garbage for good.
You agreed that it wasn't. The CMBR would look the same in a finite universe.
A hole in a box is not the only way to get BBR.
A candle flame gives a very good approximation to BBR.So does a tungsten lamp or a glowing barbeque.So does the Sun.So you can not say that th e universe is a box with a hole in it because it emits BBR.Do you understand that?
It is about "Theory D" which breaks the laws of physics.
However, it is not due to the Hole or due to the Box.
Never & ever.
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.
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?
Why do you ask the same question again and again while you have clearly got full answer?
Therefore, a LED which doesn't create intense heat doesn't have a photosphere around its source of light and therefore it has no BBR.Is it clear to you by now?
In this case, the BBR would be achieved ONLY if the box would be insulated enclosure.
it is not due to the Hole or due to the Box.
It is due to a micro photosphere around those sources of light.
You really did agree that, near the middle of that toy universe- which is finite, the CMBR would look exactly the same as in our universe.
The thing is that the photosphere of a star is made of gas.But in a tungsten lamp, the filament is surrounded by a vacuum (at least, it is for the ones used as BBR sources in physics labs)So there's nothing there for the photosphere to be made from.So you are clearly wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.pngAn idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation"
It can be produced, for example, by a xenon plasma.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lampAnd, in much the same way, by a hydrogen plasma in the early universe.
However, I claim that a CMBR of a finite Universe would never ever carry a BBR.Is it clear to you???
As I have stated, it is very clear that you have no clue about the source of the BBR.
In this case the BBR is created due to the backwards reflection of the radiation from the edge of that photosphere.
So, the photosphere acts as a unique layer which reflects back the radiation.
Therefore, any sort of layer that reflects back the radiation would create the BBR.
There is no need to have gas in that layer.Just the intense heat itself is good enough.That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.
The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.
However, that BBR would stay as long
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.
So, the idea that you can keep the BBR from that early universe after the hydrogen plasma had been cooled down is a pure fictio
In the same way - if you cool down the sun to 2.7K you won't get any sort of BBR radiation from that object.
That temp can't generate any sort of BBR due to the back reflection of intense heat.
Conclusion:There are only two options to get the BBR.1. A single source of an intense heat2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.Not "could"; does.It's an experimental fact.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04The intense heat of Hydrogen plasma or xenon plasma should create the BBR.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04There is no need to have gas in that layer.Just the intense heat itself is good enough.That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.That is just rubbish you made up.Only stars have a photosphere.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04There is no need to have gas in that layer.Just the intense heat itself is good enough.That layer acts as some sort of micro photosphere that reflects back the radiation.Hence, that reflection creates the BBR radiation.Therefore, any sort of intense heat - with or without gas, should set the BBR.
It is clear that you are wrong.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04Conclusion:There are only two options to get the BBR.1. A single source of an intense heat2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.No there is a third, obvious option.The man who thinks that white things are black is wrong.So, for example, you can get BBR from a person.That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."So you are obviously wrong.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04Conclusion:There are only two options to get the BBR.1. A single source of an intense heat2. Many cold sources in isolated enclosure.
noPhotons last "forever".Unless there is something to absorb them, they carry on forever.And that's the point. There was a time when the universe cooled enough to let the photons through.
But the BBR of the CMBR is not due to a star.So the stuff about how stars are made up is irrelevant, isn't it?So it is clear that you do not understand the BBR we see throughout the universe.
No there is a third, obvious option.