Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42

Title: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
Theory D

1. Introduction
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.
The ability of the BH/SMBH to generate new particle pair is the foundation for the evolvement of our Universe
Therefore, the Universe is increasing its mass and its size over time.
Theory D is based on the following pillars:
Darwin, Fred Hoyle, Newton and Einstein.
No dark matter or dark energy is needed for this theory. What we see is what we have.
No need for inflation, no need for expansion and no need for the BBT.
If we could go back in time (to the infinity) we would find that only one BH was needed to generate our wonderful infinite Universe.
I will introduce the whole theory step by step.

2. Fred Hoyle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949."
"Hoyle,  unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe"
Fred Hoyle estimated that galaxies should have the ability to produce new matter, but he did not foresee the recent developments and the idea of particle accelerator, and therefore couldn't explain how new mass had been created. At his time our scientists couldn't observe the ejection of mass from the accretion disc around the SMBH.

3. The "Universal Darwinism
Universal Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
"Universal Darwinism - The idea is to formulate a generalized version of the mechanisms… so that they can be applied to explain evolution in a wide variety of other domains"
The first requirement in Darwin approach is that the pattern can "survive" (maintain, be retained) long enough or "reproduce"
The Big bang isn't a reproduce pattern. Therefore it doesn't meet even the basic requirement for the Darwinism approach. Hence, if Darwin was living today, he would probably reject the Big bang theory.

4. Albert Einstein
To my best knowledge, Einstein had totally rejected the BBT.
He has also rejected his first idea for cosmological constant. He called it: the greatest blunder""
https://owlcation.com/stem/Einstiens-Cosmolgical-Constant-and-the-Expansion-of-the-Universe
"In fact, he felt it was his “greatest blunder” which had no merit in science. That supposed mistake turns out to be the cosmological constant"
Therefore, Einstein has told us clear and laud that it is forbidden to use that cosmological constant in his formula. By using that constant, we actually contradict his formula. So, we can't call it Einstein formula while we are using there a constant that is considered as his "greatest blunder".
Without that cosmological constant, there is no mathematical confirmation for the BBT.
That shows that the mathematical confirmation for the BBT is based on Einstein greatest blunder.
In any case, if our scientists insist to use that constant in Einstein formula, than they shouldn't call it "Einstein formula" anymore!!!

5. The universal common ancestor by Darwin
The "universal common ancestor" theory was first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/5/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago".
However, this "single-celled organism" must have the ability to multiply/generate other organism cell.
In the same token, as all life on Earth had been evolved from a single-celled organism, than all the variety of matter, galaxies, BH, SMBH, Stars, Planets...have been evolved from a Single cell of matter.
That "Single cell of matter" is the First matter that had been created in the whole Universe. However, it must also have the ability to multiply/generate other cell of matter
Therefore, everything we see in our Universe is a direct outcome from that first single cell of matter..
We know that a BH/SMBH can generate a new Particle pair.
We also know that the accretion disc around a SMBH is full with hot plasma (10^9 c) that orbiting at 0.3 speed of light.
Our scientists call it: "accretion disc" as they wish to believe that it accretes matter from outside. However, they clearly see that the matter in this disc is actually ejected outwards. Therefore, this disc should be called - Excretion Disc
So, the SMBH in our galaxy is actually generates new matter that is ejected outwards from its accretion disc (or actually from its excretion disc).
Therefore, we can claim that the first BH/SMBH in the Universe could be considered as the first Single cell of matter that had the ability to generate new matter.
The creation of that first BH/SMBH could be explained by some sort of Big Bang (as it is in our BBT Theory) or small bang. However, In the BBT, all the matter in the whole Universe had to be created in that Big Bang. In Theory-D only a single BH is needed for the creation of the whole infinite Universe.

6. Repeatable - Natural activity
Any nature activity must be repeatable. For example: Rain, morning, evening, supernova birth and even death.
Steady state by wiki: "In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands". This is a repeatable activity.
Theory D is based on this idea. Therefore, it meets the criteria of natural activity and Darwinism approach.
However, The Big bang took place only once in the History of the Universe. Therefore, it doesn't meet the criteria of natural activity.

7. Energy source for the BBT
Why our scientists don't try to explain the scenario before the BBT?
Could it be that there was something before the Big bang or just nothing?
I agree to accept the idea that something could be created out of nothing.
Darwin has told us that one living cell could be the source for the whole variety of life that we see. Therefore, we all can agree that first living cell could be created out of nothing. However, how can we agree that everything could be created at the same moment from nothing or even from something if our universe is infinite?
The BBT doesn't explain what is the source of energy for all the matter in the Universe.
It is just stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high-density and high-temperature"
So, what is the source for that high density and high temperature?
What is the meaning of high density?
Density of what? Is it some sort of a matter? If so, than why do we need the Big bang if the matter is already there? How any sort of density can be converted into real matter by bang without any energy transformation as electromagnetic field?
Please be aware - Not even one word about energy in the BBT…
How could it be that our scientists speak on the name of science and the first law of thermodynamics (when it comes to different theory), while they don't have a basic clue for the source of energy (or high density) for the BBT activity?

8. Mass v.s Energy in the BBT
Einstein has stated that mass can be converted to Energy by:
E = mc^2
In the same token we can claim that Energy can be converted to mass
m = E / c^2
We can convert Atom mass to energy by a bang. We call it Atom bomb or fusion. However, can we convert energy to atom?
Let's verify the mass/energy in one electron:
Its energy is - 0.511 MeV. That electron represents an energy cell with mass of 9.1093×10^−31 kg.
Therefore, in order to create a single particle, somehow we need to find the source of energy for that mass creation and a special process is needed.
How a bang by itself can convert heat or density into real Atom without real source of energy and especially without acceleration and electromagnetism?

9. Divine power?
Why our scientists insist to ignore the process before the big bang? If they don't have any responsibility for that, than who is taking care about the time before that Big bang? Do we need to think about some divine power?
If a divine power is needed, why do we need the BBT? Why can't we just accept the bible as is?
If they can't clearly explain the source for the creation of the whole mass in the Universe due to the Big Bang, than this theory should be set in the garbage of the history.

10. SMBH generates magnetic field
Black Holes & Time Warps states that a spinning black hole with a net electric charge will have a magnetic field.
Galactic nucleus - the nucleus of the Spiral galaxy is supper massive black hole – Wikipedia: "A supper massive black hole defined mass ranges from100 thousand to 10 billion solar masses. Scientists tend to assume that such a black hole exists at the center of most galaxies in the universe, including the Milky Way."   It holds around hundreds of billions of stars. So clearly, the nucleus creates tremendous power and energy. 
The spin of the SMBH generates ultra powerful magnetic field. 
"A team of researchers has measured the magnetic fields in the vicinity of the suppermassive black hole at the center of NGC 1052."
https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-measure-magnetic-fields-in-the-vicinity-of-a-black-hole/
Two particle jets shoot out from the heart of active galaxy NGC 1052 at the speed of light, apparently originating in the vicinity of a massive black hole.
The team concludes that the magnetic fields provide enough magnetic energy to power the twin jets.
Similar particle jet stream stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16
"The newfound jets may be related to mysterious gamma-ray bubbles that Fermi detected in 2010. Those bubbles also stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. However, where the bubbles are perpendicular to the galactic plane, the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. This may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the suppermassive black hole.
"Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"
In order to blow those kind of particles jet stream to that distance of 27,000 LY  it is clear that an Ultra Magnetic field is needed.
ONLY SMBH Can generate that kind of magnetic field!!!
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:22:01
11. New mass creation:
The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does.
Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So, new pair of particles can be created around a BH or SMBH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton."
" if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
In order to produce a positron-electron pair, 1.022 MeV of rotational kinetic energy is extracted from the BH
Let's assume that we are looking down on the most inwards side of the accretion disk (or even below) from above.
Let's also assume that electron and positron had been created at some radius below the inmost accretion ring. At the moment of creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
Please remember that at the moment of creation, the new created particles pair must fully meet the orbital speed for the attitude (or radius) from the SMBH.  It must fully obey to Newton orbital law.
We can get better understanding by look at the following Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
How Lorentz force works on those new particles pair?
In order to get better understanding let's look at the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=135&v=RqSode4HZrE&feature=emb_title
The North/South Poles of the SMBH is up/down with reference to their orbital direction. Therefore, based on that video, one charged particle should be deflected to the left while the other one would be deflected right. Hence, one particle should be deflected inwards to the SMBH direction, while the other one would be deflected outwards to the direction of the accretion disc.
The deflection inwards would decrease its altitude or radius from the SMBH. Therefore, it will face stronger gravity force from the SMBH.
That radius change will force it to fall in as its current orbital velocity would be too low. As it is stated in the following video:
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth" (or to the SMBH in our case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
On the other hand, the other particles must be deflected outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, its speed would be too high with reference to its current radius. Even a small deflection should bring it under the influence of the inwards side of the accretion disc. At that aria it would have to obey to the magnetic forces/pressures that are generated by the accretion disc itself. We know that the average orbital velocity at the accretion disc is about 0.3c. So, the new arrival particle might bang with the other particles already orbiting at the inwards side of the accretion ring and reduces its velocity from almost the speed of light to about 0.3c. At that moment it would become a new member at the plasma.
With regards to temperature – A new created particle must come with Ultra high temp. Adding to that the ultra high pressures, forces, Electric current flow and fusion activity in the plasma would increase the temp to almost 10^9 c at the accretion disc.   
This separation deflection process is vital. Without it, any new created particle pair would be eliminated at the same moment of their creation as each particle carry a negative charged with reference to the other.
Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

12. Accretion or excretion disc?
The SMBH doesn't eat any atom or particle from the Accretion disc. It is eating only the charged particles that had been forced to fall in due to Lorentz force. In the same token, the other negative charged (out of the new created pairs) are ejected to the accretion disc due to the same Lorentz force.
Therefore, all the matter in that disc had been created by the transformation of the energy from the SMBH using the Ultra magnetic field. Noting could come from outside!!!
Actually the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards:
 Milky Way's Giant Black Hole Spits Out Its Food http://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The new findings show definitively that most of the matter in the gas cloud surrounding the black hole is ejected out into space, which explains why it doesn't release light on its way in to be eaten."
This is an indication that new matter is ejected from the Milky Way supper massive black hole.
It is also clear that the Black hole does not eat any mass.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l8_p7.html
"Using the highest resolution IR cameras available, astronomers have repeatedly observed the stars orbiting around Sgr A*. They have measured the orbit of a star that comes within 17 light-hours of the object in the core of our Galaxy, which is a distance that is only a few times larger than the orbit of Pluto around the Sun."
So, as the suppermassive black hole does not eat this star which is located so close it doesn't eat any mass at all.
It is also stated: "The dust gets thicker and thicker as we look into the center of the Galaxy."
This is an indication that the supper massive black hole does not eat any mass. If it was eating a mass then the dust should be thinner as we look into the core of galaxy.
If the SMBH was eating matter from outside than after billions years of "stars eating" we should expect that the center of spiral galaxy around the SMBH should be quite empty of mass and stars.
But in contrary, we actually see high concentrate of mass and new forming stars at the center. Based on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
That by itself proves that the SMBH is not eating any star or mass from outside. The SMBH is the biggest manufacturer for Hydrogen Atoms and for any molecular that is available in our galaxy.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called – excretion disc.

13. Expansion
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#37a6bfd255df
"The idea of the Big Bang first came about back in the 1920s and 1930s. When we looked out at distant galaxies, we discovered something peculiar: the farther away from us they were, the faster they appeared to be receding from us. According to the predictions of Einstein's General Relativity, a static Universe would be gravitationally unstable; everything needed to either be moving away from one another or collapsing towards one another if the fabric of space obeyed his laws. The observation of this apparent recession taught us that the Universe was expanding today, and if things are getting farther apart as time goes on, it means they were closer together in the distant past."
Let's focus on: "The observation of this apparent recession taught us that the Universe was expanding today, and if things are getting farther apart as time goes on, it means they were closer together in the distant past."
Let's add to that the following concept by Elbert Einstein and Fred Hoyle:
https://guardianlv.com/2014/03/albert-einstein-debunked-the-big-bang-theory/
 "According to the translation, the physicist (Elbert Einstein..) believed that “for the density to remain constant new particles of matter must be continually formed,” which confirmed Hoyle’s findings."
Therefore, if new matter is created as the Universe expands the density of the Universe can stay the same. Actually according to Theory D, the space in the Universe does not expand. Only the matters in our Universe (galaxies) are expanding in all directions.
Theory D confirms the predictions of Einstein's General Relativity - "Everything needed to be moving away from one another"!
However, we still need to explain the following observation: "the farther away from us they were, the faster they appeared to be receding from us."
Theory D gives a perfect explanation also for that. More to come…
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/03/2020 17:22:51
14. Orbital Velocity & Energy

This is a key element in our understanding how gravity really works.
Let's look at Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
In order to get circular orbital motion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
That orbital velocity (Vo) is also called perpendicular velocity or magic velocity. The formula is as follow:
Vo ^2 = G M / r
We can also get better understanding by the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
Diagram of orbital motion of a satellite around the Earth, showing perpendicular velocity and acceleration (force) vectors.
We see that (v) represents the orbital velocity vector or Vo, while (a) represents the falling in acceleration vector.
They are actually orthogonal to each other.
The velocity vector v represents the direction of the kinetic orbital energy at any given moment:
Eko (Kinetic orbital energy) = 1/2 m Vo ^2 / r
The acceleration (a) represents the direction of the potential energy (Ep).
Ep (potential energy) = G M m / r
As those energies are orthogonal to each other, by increasing or decreasing one of them, there will be no impact on the other one.
We can get a confirmation for that in the following explanation by Newton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth"
Newton didn't say that as the satellite falls back to earth it will increase its orbital velocity!!!
In order to get better understanding, let's assume that we could shut down the gravity force in the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
It is clear that the satellite will continue to move on in a direct line with the same velocity Vo due to its momentum.
So, it will move in the same direction from the point of losing the gravity and it will keep its last velocity and its kinetic energy due to that velocity.
Ek (at the moment of losing gravity) = EKo = 1/2 m Vo^2 /r
On the other hand, if we could stop completely the orbital motion at a single moment, than the satellite should fall in directly to the center of Earth.
Converting the potential energy into falling in kinetic energy won't increase or decrease the orbital energy.
For example let's look at a satellite in a circular orbiting cycle around the earth. Its orbital velocity is Vo1 and its radius is r1.
Let's assume that due to external force it reduces its radius to r2 while its orbital velocity is still Vo1,
However, as Vo1 is lower than the requested Vo2, than this satellite will start to fall in. During this process of falling inwards, it will keep its orbital velocity Vo1 till the impact with the earth.
Hence, there will be no transformation of energy from the potential energy to the orbital kinetic energy. There is no way to increase the orbital velocity by decreasing the potential energy
Therefore, the idea that matter can fall into the accretion disc and increases its orbital velocity to almost 0.3c is a fiction!!!
Newton told us with its Cannon ball experimental that if an object is in orbital circular around a main mass, once it reduces its radius, the current  orbital velocity will be too low than the requested orbital velocity. As the potential energy can't be transformed to any sort of orbital energy, that object MUST fall in and collide with the main mass.
Therefore, the ONLY way to gain 0.3c at the accretion disc – is JUST due to new particle/matter that is ejected outwards (below the inmost ring of the accretion disc)
That is another confirmation for the idea of new mass creation around the SMBH.
So, matter in a circular orbital system can't increase its orbital velocity while decreasing the radius
However, on the other direction it can work.
The reason from that is: Orbital friction

15. Orbital Friction:
The orbital kinetic energy is Eko:
Eko (Kinetic orbital energy) = 1/2 m Vo ^2 / r
However, there is a friction in orbital system.
That friction could be for example due to Tidal
We know that Tidal power draws energy from the Moon's orbit.
So let's assume that ΔEt represents the energy that tidal draws from the orbital energy at a given time Δt.
Therefore, the correct formula for Ekof (with friction) should be as follow
Ekof (Eko with frictiont) = Eko – ΔEt
So, if we start at T=0
Eko (at T=0) = 1/2 m Vo1 ^2 / r1
At T = Δt
Ekof (at T= Δt) = 1/2 m Vo2 ^2 / r2 = 1/2 m Vo1 ^2 / r1 – ΔEt
The outcome is:
Vo2 ≤ Vo1 (it is equal if ΔEt = 0)
While
r2 ≥ r1 (it is equal if ΔEt = 0)
Therefore, due to friction (as tidal) orbital objects should increase the radius and decrease the orbital velocity over time.
Hence, any orbital system with a friction (as tidal) represents an orbit that is spiraling outwards.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2020 17:37:49
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
Since you started with a non sequitur, I stopped reading at this point.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/03/2020 17:40:56
15. Photon Sphere
I'm really excited. I have just found an article which confirms the creation zone of new particles between the accretion ring and the event horizon.
This aria is called – Photon sphere (I was not aware about that name).
Please look at the following image:
https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/black-hole.cfm
It is stated:
"Just outside the event horizon of the BH, gravity is strong enough to bend their paths so that we see a bright ring surrounding a roughly circular dark shadow."
However, they think that this radiation is coming from the outwards accretion disc or actually from the plasma in that accretion disc:
"Although the black hole itself is dark, photons are emitted from nearby hot plasma in jets or an accretion disc."
"As charged particles go around, they accelerate, causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation."
This is a severe mistake.
As Newton has told us very clear in his cannon ball experimental, matter that moves to lower radius, can't increase the orbital velocity and can't get higher orbital acceleration.
Therefore, the only way to generate this radiation between the event horizon to the innermost accretion ring, is by new created particle pairs at the photon sphere.
Due to the location of that zone it is also clear that the orbital velocity should be much higher than just 0.3c (as it is in the accretion disc). I would assume that the orbital velocity at the Photon sphere is almost as high as the speed of light.
The innermost accretion ring is called – innermost stable orbit. That shows that our scientists see the difference between the stable orbit at the innermost excretion ring to the aria of the new pair production that is called Photon sphere.
They also claim that the plasma in the accretion disc is made of broken Atoms - free electrons and nuclei.
"Black holes trap nearby gases in their gravitational pull and whip them around in an orbit at immense speeds. The gas material gets very hot and breaks apart into its constituent positive nuclei and negative electrons, not bound together as an atom. This hot mass of free electrons and nuclei is called a plasma."
But they don't understand that the process works the other way. The excretion disc doesn't break down the atoms to positive nuclei and negative electrons in that plasma. If that was the case, than as most of that matter is ejected outwards, we should see mainly broken atoms that are ejected from the excretion disc. However, we mainly see real Atoms and molecular that are ejected from the excretion disc. That ejected matter is actually ejected upwards/downwards as Twin molecular jet stream.
Therefore, the excretion disc is actually forming new Atoms and molecular from the new created particles that are ejected to that aria from the Photon sphere.

16. Twin Molecular jet stream
The excretion disc is the biggest Atoms/molecular manufacturer in our Universe. Under Ultra high Pressure, Electromagnetism, High temp 10^9 c, High electric current, all the variety of Atoms and molecular are created in the plasma that orbits at 0.3c. Eventually the new matter is elected outwards from the excretion disc.
The SMBH' Ultra high magnetic power grab the ejected molecular and boosts them upwards/downwards directly in line with the North/south SMBH' magnetic poles. Those twin molecular jets are lifted at 0.8c to 27,000 LY above/below the galactic disc.
Please look at the image of that twin molecular jets:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/ghostlygamma.jpg
Our scientists have found another observation for that process:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/matter-falling-into-black-hole-06440.html
“We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole.”
This far end galaxy is located at about one Billion LY away. We are looking at that galaxy directly from above.
Our scientists assume that they have traced an Earth-sized clump of matter that is moving at 0.3c directly to SMBH. This is absolutely incorrect due to the following reasons:
The whole accretion disc rotates according the SMBH spinning direction and under its mighty electromagnetism force and pressure. Therefore, there is no room for internal rings to move in different angels or opposite directions.
Therefore, the following assumption of the accretion structure is a pure fantasy:
http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge5/image_6440_2e-PG1211-143.jpg
Hence, the idea that this Earth-sized clump of matter could be created due to a collision between two nearby accretion rings is a pure fantasy. Even we could set there that Earth-sized clump of matter, it won't be able to cross above or below the accretion disc due to the Ultra pressure there. It will have to join all the other matter in the plasma and orbits at 0.3c around the SMBH. So, there is no way for that Earth-sized clump of matter to bypass the accretion disc and move DIRECTLY to the SMBH.
Hence, the process works as follow:
That Earth-sized clump of matter had been ejected outwards from the excretion disc. The Mighty SMBH' magnetic power grab that matter and boosts it at 0.8c to the twin molecular jets (up to 27,000 Ly above and below the SMBH). Therefore, our scientists see the Earth-sized clump of matter as it moves directly to the SMBH. Our scientists think that it is moving to the SMBH, but in reality it is moving far above/below the SMBH. They monitor 0.3c, but in it moves at 0.8c to the upwards or downwards poles.  However, as they see the galaxy and the Earth-sized clump of matter directly from above at one billion LY away, they can't see the difference.
However, if they will verify again the records they might find that as the Earth-sized clump of matter comes closer to the SMBH its velocity is going down due to the structure of the molecular jet stream.
There is high benefit for those twin jets stream.
By the time that the New Atoms and molecular (as water) are ejected from the excretion disc, they also include many particles that had not been converted to real Atom/Molecular. Therefore, a cleaning process is needed. As the stream is boosted upwards, heavy mature atoms/molecular are falling back to the galactic disc, while the none mature particles are pushed away from the galactic disc.
We see a constant flow of jet stream due to the constant production of new molecular by the excretion disc. If the excretion disc was a real accretion disc, eating stars from time to time, we would have to see it as a broken stream. So, for each time that it eats something, it also ejects 99% of that something. However, we don't see any fragmentation in the molecular jet stream. Therefore, this is one more evidence that the excretion disc is the biggest molecular manufacturer in the Galaxy.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2020 18:48:26
There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/03/2020 16:45:14
17. Gas Cloud & SMBH' dung

As the mature molecular/Atoms fall back to the galactic disc from the twin molecular jet stream, they grab into gas clouds as G1 and G2:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2892301/Mystery-cloud-near-Milky-Way-s-black-hole-Unidentified-gas-drifted-nearby-massive-star.html
"In this image the red part of the G2 cloud is seen in orbit around the black hole (path shown in solid white). The blue part is the second cloud, G1. The distance from red to blue is 900 times the Earth-sun distance."
"In 2013, the G2 gas cloud made its closest approach to the black hole, a distance of 20 light hours - about five times the distance of our sun to Neptune."
"Both are in a similar orbit, suggesting they are part of the same stream of gas - and they may just be one in a series of gas clouds deposited around the black hole by a star."
So, our scientists consider that they are part of the same stream of gas, but they don't have a clue that this gas is coming from the molecular in the twin molecular jet stream that fall to the galactic disc.
G1 and G2 are not there by themselves. There are more gas clouds:
https://www.universetoday.com/144654/more-mysterious-space-blobs-have-been-found-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way/
"And recently, a team from UCLA’s Galactic Center Orbits Initiative detected a series of compact objects that also orbit the SMBH. These objects look like clouds of gas but behave like stars, depending on how close they are in their orbits to Sagittarius A*".
"In 2018…identify three more of these objects (G3, G4, and G5) near the galaxy’s center. Since that time, a total of six objects have been identified in this region (G1 – G6)".
In those Gas clouds new Star forming activity takes place. There is an evidence for star in G2:
"The most recent observations also showed that while the gas from G2’s outer shell was stretched dramatically, the dust contained inside did not get stretched much. This means that something kept the dust compact, which is compelling evidence that star could be inside G2. "
Due to the high star forming activity at those gas clouds, there is high concentration of new born stars near the SMBH:
"At the center of our galaxy lies a region where roughly 10 million stars are packed into just 1 parsec (3.25 light-years) of space."
If the SMBH had any intention to eat stars from outside, it will probably eat them all. But the high concentration of stars near the SMBH proves that the SMBH has no intention to eat even one atom from outside.
We see further confirmation for new star forming activity near the SMBH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
"The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the Milky Way, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity".
In order to understand that process, let's look at Pig sty
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/ED8KKW/pig-in-muddy-pigsty-uk-ED8KKW.jpg
What do we see?
Dung over dung everywhere. Do you think that this pig has any intention to eat its dung?
Let's try to compare that pig to the SMBH. In this case, the dung that we see would represent the matter that had been ejected from the excretion disc. Hence, the SMBH has no intention to eat its dung. It only eats one particle from the new created particle pair at the Photon Sphere. The other particle is ejected outwards from the SMBH. So, it is a product that is created by the SMBH, but it is ejected outwards as some sort of a dung.
Therefore, we can claim that our body, our solar system, our galaxy and the whole universe is made of SMBH' dung.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2020 17:03:10
There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/03/2020 17:34:08
There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.
Didn't you see my reply at:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78586.0

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/03/2020 05:44:46
18. New born stars system in a gas cloud

In the following article there is a brief explanation about that activity:
https://www.space.com/4584-spin-stars-born.html
"New stars form from enormous clouds of gas and dust collapse under their own gravity into dense spheres. The packed cores are ignited by thermonuclear reactions. As they collapse, the clouds rotate, and like an ice skater pulling in his arms while spinning, rotation speed increases as the collapsing cloud gets smaller."
However, there is a problem with this concept. A gas cloud has no arms like "Ice skater". Therefore, it can't increase its spinning. Our scientists also have no clue about the dissipation of the rotational energy as stated:
" Some of this rotation energy, called angular momentum, must be dissipated before the star can contract completely. How this happens, though, is unknown."
It is also stated that the centrifugal force will prevent from the gas in the cloud to collapse:
"Given the size difference between an ordinary star like our sun and a typical molecular cloud, if the rotation was allowed to increase as the cloud collapsed, the [apparent] centrifugal forces would never allow the material to collapse into anything small enough to form a star,"
So, how it really works? Our scientists assume that magnetic field is needed.
"A new model by Chrysostomou and colleagues suggests excess material and energy are borne away from the protostar along helical magnetic field lines that surround the star."
Our scientists assume that the Milky way is filled with magnetic field:
"Our Milky Way is filled with magnetic fields, which are generated any time charged particles move about. The new model predicts that field lines around a cloudy stellar womb get twisted by the womb's rotation."
However, there is no evidence that charged particles can generate the requested magnetic field in a gas cloud that is needed for the activity of new born star.
Hence, the only place for ultra high magnetic field is around the SMBH. I have already proved that issue.
So, the gas cloud must get closer to the SMBH inorder to be under the influence of the requested magnetic field.
There is an evidence of that:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2892301/Mystery-cloud-near-Milky-Way-s-black-hole-Unidentified-gas-drifted-nearby-massive-star.html
"In 2013, the G2 gas cloud made its closest approach to the black hole, a distance of 20 light hours - about five times the distance of our sun to Neptune."
At this distance, the influence of the SMBH' magnetic field can boost the Star forming activity at the nearby gas cloud.
However, "Most of the stars twinkling in the night sky aren't alone. They're pairs, triplets or other groups, and scientists haven't understood why."
https://www.seeker.com/why-most-stars-have-twins-discovery-news-1766498927.html
Therefore, several stars are formed at the gas cloud at same time.  So, by the time that those new stars are getting out from the gas cloud, they orbit around a common center of mass or braycenter. Therefore, the gas in the cloud doesn't just collapsed to the center in order to form single star. In reality as the gas orbits around the center of the cloud, and under the influence of the magnetic field, it crystallized in many gas balls. Many of them will be merged and form the new born stars, while the other might orbit around those new born stars as planets and moons. Therefore, each gas cloud will form several sets of stars. Each star will carry integrated planets and moons while each planet or moon comes as a hot gas ball. So, all our solar system including our planet and moon had been created in a gas cloud near the SMBH from the same matter and at the same time.
Hence, our planet and moon had been born as a hot gas balls with the same matter that sets the Sun. Therefore, nearly all Sun-like Stars have planetary systems:

https://www.universetoday.com/99309/nearly-all-sun-like-stars-have-planetary-systems/

"The latest analysis of data from the Kepler planet-hunting spacecraft reveals that almost all stars have planets, and about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury".
 In our Sun, there is about 75% of hydrogen while the solid Atoms/molecular are less than 2%.
Therefore, The Earth as a rocky planet includes less than 2% from the total matter in its first day. Hence, its real mass on day one was more than 50 times than its current mass. Even so, due to its relatively small size, our planet couldn't hold the light gas as hydrogen and helium that had been evaporated over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
"Hydrogen gas is very rare in the Earth's atmosphere (1 ppm by volume) because of its light weight, which enables it to escape from Earth's gravity more easily than heavier gases. However, hydrogen is the third most abundant element on the Earth's surface,[82] mostly in the form of chemical compounds such as hydrocarbons and water".
Same idea with any relatively small planet or moon in the solar system. Only the big gas planets as Jupiter or Saturn were big enough to hold some portion of the light gas under their gravity force.
On the first day, all the planets were much closer to the Sun. The moons were much closer to the planets and even the stars were closer to their braycenters.
At that early time the gravity force between Earth/Moon was much stronger than the Sun/Moon. Therefore, the moon had been forced to orbit around the Earth and not around the Sun. Please remember that today the gravity of the Sun/Moon is about twice stronger than the gravity of the Earth/Moon. However, due to hysteresis phenomena, the moon keeps its orbital cycle around the Earth.
In any case, star forming activity can only take place near giant source of magnetic field. As the SMBH is almost the only source for mighty magnetic field in the galaxy, than all/most of the new born stars system takes place in a gas clouds near the SMBH.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/03/2020 21:19:23
19. The Sun motion due to Binary star

I have found one more article that confirms the existence of binary stars at each gas cloud around the SMBH
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10752710/six-mystery-objects-orbit-black-hole/
"The six objects are named G1 through to G6.
"These objects look like gas and behave like stars."
"The astronomers now think that each G object could be a pair of binary stars that revolved around each other."
This is a key element in our understanding of star movement/orbit in the galaxy.
So, all/most of the stars in our galaxy revolve around at least one other star.
Our Sun is also part of the same galaxy system.
If there are binary stars in all the gas cloud, our sun should also be part of a binary star.
We don't see it yet, but it could be there as some sort of a dark star or even a small black hole.
Our SMBH form many of new BH
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5578539/Tens-thousands-black-holes-lurking-heart-galaxy-claim-scientists.html
"There may be tens of thousands of black holes may lurking in the heart of our galaxy".
Therefore, one of that baby BH might have set a binary star system with our Sun when they both had been formed near the SMBH. Therefore, we can't see it. But it is there.
So, our Sun must orbit around a braycenter while that braycenter revolves around the galaxy.
Therefore, when we look at the movement of our sun we think that it is bobbling:
https://slate.com/technology/2013/03/vortex-motion-viral-video-showing-suns-motion-through-galaxy-is-wrong.html
"A far more correct (though exaggerrated vertically for clarity) depiction of the Sun’s motion around the Milky Way galaxy has it bobbing up and down every 64 million years due to the gravity of the galactic disk."
However, Newton has told us very clearly that gravity means constant orbit around some center of mass.
Therefore, there is no way that our sun is just bobbling due to the gravity of the galactic disc as stated:
"The gravity of the disk would make the Sun plunge down into it. Since stars are so far apart, the Sun would go right through the disk and out the bottom. But then the disk would be pulling it up, once again toward the disk. The Sun would slow, stop, and reverse course, plummeting into the disk once again. It gets about 200 or so light years from the midplane of the galactic disk every time its bobs; the disk is 1000 light years thick, though, so we always stay well inside it. But these oscillations would go on forever, the Sun moving up and down like a cork in the ocean."
This is a severe mistake.
Orbital motion is not like a cork in the ocean.
The Sun orbits around a braycenter. therefore we see it as a cork in the ocean as it revolves around the galaxy - up and down.
In the article it is stated that the sun goes 200 LY above an below the disc. However, the disc is 1000 LY thick. So there must be stars high above/below our location.
If that theory of bobbling was correct than the star at the top should bobble 1000Ly up and 1000Ly down.
This is fantasy. Each star orbit around its own braycenter. Therefore we should see them all moving up and down while they all orbit around their own braycenter..
Hence, as our Sun shares a braycener with other dark star (or even BH) it can bobble up and down while it revolves around the galaxy.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/03/2020 21:43:04
S2 Motion due to Binary star

Please look at the following image of S2 orbital motion.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fit-to-the-orbit-of-the-S2-star-fitted-data-and-relative-errors-are-in-blue-the-red_fig1_272845577
We clearly see that it doesn't fit exactly with the expected orbital motion.
It also bobble around that expected orbital line.
The answer for that is also Binary System.
S2 Must share a braycenter with other dark star of BH.
This shared braycenter must fit perfectly with the expected orbital motion.
Again - there is no bobble or almost fit.
Newton have told us that there must be a perfect fit in every orbital Motion

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 27/03/2020 21:51:07
Dave, please go back and edit your prior posts instead of double posting in the future. Thank you.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/03/2020 22:59:07
Dave, please go back and edit your prior posts instead of double posting in the future. Thank you.
As far as I can tell, he's not double posting; he's rambling.
The fact that he was wrong in the first few lines isn't stopping him.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Halc on 27/03/2020 23:47:42
As far as I can tell, he's not double posting; he's rambling.
The fact that he was wrong in the first few lines isn't stopping him.
Well, pretty much every bit of this has been pushed in his prior topic, and all the responses have been completely ignored, so there seems to be no point in making any. Yes, he's just going to continue repeating this tripe over and over, in multiple threads no less.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/03/2020 06:42:56
Dave, please go back and edit your prior posts instead of double posting in the future. Thank you.
Dear Kryptid
In this thread I'm going to introduce the whole theory for our Universe.
I will explain why do we see that all far galaxies are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while the density of the Universe will stay the same forever.
No need for dark energy or dark matter. No need for inflation or space expansion. No need for bobbling theory or density wave.
Theory-D is the Only real theory for our Universe.
Sooner or later students will learn this theory in the University.
In the prior post I have just focused on spiral galaxy.
Please let me finish the whole introduction and then take a final conclusion about this theory.

However, I'm quite realistic.
The science community would probably reject this theory or any other theory that contradicts the BBT.
It seems to me that our scientists have one mission - to prove that the BBT is the only valid theory.
In order to do so they must also eliminate any other idea/theory that might negatively effect the BBT.
Why is it?
Why they all insist to ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT?
Why they insist to ignore the time before the BBT???
Why they can't give a real answer for the source of energy that was needed for the BBT?
How could they believe in bobbling orbital motion although it is a direct contradiction with Newton law?
How could they belive that star could drift inwards to the center of mass and increase its orbital velocity, while Newton have told us clear and loud that this is impossible mission?
Why they refuse to understand that ONLY Newton law must be used to explain the orbital motions at each segment in spiral galaxy?
Do they know why at the ring of the galaxy (3KPC) the thickness of the disc/arm is 3000 Ly while at the far end of the disc/arm  (12-15KPC) the thickness is less than 400LY?
How could they use the cosmological constant in Einstein formula (and still call it Einstein formula) while he had stated clearly that this constant is the biggest mistake of his life?
You speak on the name of thermodynamics laws. So, why you don't answer how the BBT fulfill that law without real source of energy?
Do you estimate that an Atom could be created without electromagnetic power?
Where is the source for the magnetic power at the BBT theory?
I do understand that if we wish to hook the BBT to some divine power, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.
So, could it be that our scientists are ready to fight for the BBT and reject any other idea/theory as it hooks between their own divine believe to science?
Could it be that our scientists don't deal with the time before the BBT as the divine power gives the requested energy or magnetic power for that activity?
Therefore, could it be that the whole idea of the BBT is to show how the whole universe had been evolved from a divine power?
However, God is located in our hart. Why do we need to hook science with divine power?
Don't you agree that we can fully believe in God and still accept Darwin theory?
However, we all know that Darwin had been forced to reject his ideas..
So, could it be that even today our scientists reject any other idea/theory as it contradicts with their believe?
After many years scientists have understood that Darwin theory is correct.
So, how long do we have to wait for our scientists in order to accept the idea that the BBT is incorrect and we should open our mind to other theory as Theory D?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2020 10:44:30
As far as I can tell, he's not double posting; he's rambling.
The fact that he was wrong in the first few lines isn't stopping him.
Well, pretty much every bit of this has been pushed in his prior topic, and all the responses have been completely ignored, so there seems to be no point in making any. Yes, he's just going to continue repeating this tripe over and over, in multiple threads no less.
It's time he was banned.

Mind you, perhaps we should let him carry on just for comedy value.
The science community would probably reject this theory or any other theory that contradicts the BBT.
Yes, we will- because we accept things that are supported by evidence.

But I predict that Dave isn't even going to address the fact that he was wrong in the first few lines.
Dave doesn't understand the importance of evidence.
Don't be like Dave.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/03/2020 16:21:15
Dave doesn't understand the importance of evidence.
Yes I do
Evrey idea that I offer is based on real evidence/observation
Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:

1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.
2. Galaxy is growing from internally - Baby Boom  galaxy
"The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
However it is stated: "The discovery also challenges the accepted model for galaxy formation, which has most galaxies slowly bulking up by absorbing pieces of other galaxies, rather than growing internally."
Based on this observation our scientists see that the galaxy is growing from internally.
Hence this observation contradicts the BBT. So, why this observation had been neglected?
3. Dark Matter - So far we have no direct observation for dark matter. The dark matter might give some brief concept for the spiral disc. However it doesn't answer why the spiral has several segments as central bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arms, outside the galaxy and why at each segment the orbital motion is so different. How can we explain all of that different observation with just single idea of dark matter? Please also be aware that for each galaxy there might be different formula for dark matter. Actually, the gravity force is relative to 1/R^2, while the dark matter is relative to R^3. So, the dark matter formula is quite complicated as it should linearize the R^2 based on R^3. How can we accept this idea??
4. Dark energy - We also don't see any dark energy. The whole idea is to explain why further galaxies are moving away from us at ultra high velocity. Is it real? Theory D can easily explain that observation without any need for Dark energy.
5. Accretion disc - our scientists clearly see that the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards. This is a real observation at any spiral galaxy that we see. However, after long search they have found galaxy at a distance of one billion LY from us. In that galaxy they have observed a gas ball in the size of Earth that is moving directly to the direction of the SMBH. So, they want us to believe that suddenly that gas cloud had been created due to internal collision between the rings in the accretion disc. However, due to the ultra high pressure in that ring, there is no way to set that kind of gas cloud. In any case they also  know that Nothing can bypass the accretion disc (above or below) as it moves to the SMBH. I have proved this idea.
6. The aria near the SMBH is full with gas cloud, new born stars systems and even with ten thousands of new born BH. The central bulge is pack with Billions of new born stars and dust. This is all based on real observation. If the SMBH wish to eat that matter, why it refuses to eat them all? What is the benefit for the SMBH to eat a star, than break its atoms to particles in a 10^9c plasma, just to eject 99% of that mater outwards from the accretion disc? However, it must first convert back the broken particles/atoms to real molecular, boost them in twin molecular jet stream at 0.8 c and then start again the whole new star forming activity. Is it real? Did we try to understand what the energy benefit is for the SMBH from this cycle?
7. Central bulge - We clearly see at this aria that each star (for example S stars) is orbiting at different direction and different plane around the SMBH. So, as they fall in, it is expected that each one of them should set a different plane of accretion disc. Therefore, it is expected to see several accretion discs around the SMBH - each accretion disc for each falling star. However, we clearly see that this is not the case with the any accretion disc around a SMBH. Therefore, this is one more observation that the SMBH does not eat any star or even any atom from outside.
8. Newton - Newton has proved by his cannon ball experimental that there is no way for an orbital object to increase its orbital velocity as it falls down. Therefore, stars couldn't migrate inwards from outside the galaxy to the center.  However, our scientists do believe that stars/objects can migrate inwards and increase their orbital velocity due to the conversion of potential energy to orbital kinetic energy. This idea totally contradicts Newton law.
9. New born stars in a gas cloud - Our scientists clearly say that high magnetic field is needed to start the activity in a gas cloud for a new born stars. The SMBH is the only available source for ultra high Magnetic field in the galaxy. We clearly see the new born star forming activity in the gas cloud G1-G6 near the SMBH. However, we almost have no real evidence for high magnetic field or star forming activity outside the Bulge and especially not outside the galaxy. However, for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside. Actually, there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies. So, how those billions over billions of stars outside the galaxy had been formed without real source of magnetic field? The answer is very simple - all of those stars had been ejected from the galaxy. So, the galaxy does not take any star from outside just to be eaten. Over time it actually ejects outwards all the stars that had been formed in the galaxy.
10. Binary star system - Braycenter
Our scientists claim that based on clear observation all the new born stars in the gas clouds (as G1 to G6) share a braycenter with at least one more star. However, when it comes to our sun, suddenly they have forgotten this observation. Now, they have no clue about a braycenter. Therefore, they start to believe in bobbling.
11. Bobbling - There is no way for an orbital object to move in a bobbling movement up and down several times in one orbital cycle. This is a clear contradiction with Newton and kepler law. So how could our scientists believe in such science fiction?
Why they don't accept their own observation???

Do you need more points?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2020 16:31:51
Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:

1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.
That's not a contradiction.
the simple answer is " we don't know". It's not as if we were there at the time taking measurements.

But I predict that Dave isn't even going to address the fact that he was wrong in the first few lines.
I was right.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2020 16:35:09
However it is stated: "The discovery also challenges the accepted model for galaxy formation, which has most galaxies slowly bulking up by absorbing pieces of other galaxies, rather than growing internally."
Based on this observation our scientists see that the galaxy is growing from internally.
Hence this observation contradicts the BBT. So, why this observation had been neglected?
How did you miss this bit?
"which has most galaxies ..."
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 28/03/2020 18:54:43
Yes I do

LOL, you don't even understand how conservation of energy works.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Halc on 28/03/2020 19:15:25
Quote from: Dave Lev
Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.
That's not a contradiction.
the simple answer is " we don't know". It's not as if we were there at the time taking measurements.
Well, for one, the BBT does not attempt to explain from where everything came. Secondly, it seems the total energy of the universe is zero, so there's no need for a source of zero energy.

All this of course was pointed out the first time he put out these arguments.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/03/2020 07:02:02
Let's focus on Energy

With regards to the BBT:
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:21:15
Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:
1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.
That's not a contradiction.
the simple answer is " we don't know". It's not as if we were there at the time taking measurements.
Well, if you don't know abut the source of energy for the BBT, than how can you support this theory?

Well, for one, the BBT does not attempt to explain from where everything came. Secondly, it seems the total energy of the universe is zero, so there's no need for a source of zero energy.
If the BBT does not attempt to explain from where everything came, than again - this theory has no valid base.
What do you mean by: "there's no need for a source of zero energy"
The BBT must get energy to start the whole process.
It was clearly stated that the initial state of the BBT was "very high-density and high-temperature"
So, they clearly start with energy and that source of energy is clearly not zero
Please read my following message about the BBT energy scource:

7. Energy source for the BBT
Why our scientists don't try to explain the scenario before the BBT?
Could it be that there was something before the Big bang or just nothing?
I agree to accept the idea that something could be created out of nothing.
Darwin has told us that one living cell could be the source for the whole variety of life that we see. Therefore, we all can agree that first living cell could be created out of nothing. However, how can we agree that everything could be created at the same moment from nothing or even from something if our universe is infinite?
The BBT doesn't explain what is the source of energy for all the matter in the Universe.
It is just stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high-density and high-temperature"
So, what is the source for that high density and high temperature?
What is the meaning of high density?
Density of what? Is it some sort of a matter? If so, than why do we need the Big bang if the matter is already there? How any sort of density can be converted into real matter by bang without any energy transformation as electromagnetic field?
Please be aware - Not even one word about energy in the BBT…
How could it be that our scientists speak on the name of science and the first law of thermodynamics (when it comes to different theory), while they don't have a basic clue for the source of energy (or high density) for the BBT activity?

So, how can you all claim that the BBT is valid while you have no clue about its source of energy?
I'm electronic design engineer.
When I start any design, the first question is - what is the source of energy.
Somehow, our scientists have totally skipped that key question.
If those scientists will design an aircraft without any idea for the source of its energy, than how it could move even one centimeter?
They speak about the energy of "everything", while they can't even explain the source of energy of "something".
Our scientists want us to believe that the whole energy for the whole universe - (even for infinite universe) was there before the bang, while they have no clue about the source for that energy.
Actually, they can't even explain the source of energy that is requested for one Atom.
Let's read again the following answer:
"the total energy of the universe is zero, so there's no need for a source of zero energy"
How can they generate even one atom if the total energy of the universe is zero?

With regards to Atom creation:
Let's assume that you need to design a process to generate one atom
Do you have any idea for the requested energy?
Einstein have told us:
E = M c^2
So, the energy of mass M should be higher than this mass by c^2
Now try to calculate the energy that is requested for just one star as our sun.
Do you see any possibility to get that energy while the total energy of the universe is zero?

In any case, even if we have some energy, there must be a process to convert energy to particle/atom/molecular
That process could work only at accelerator as we see at CERN:
https://home.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex
"The accelerator complex at CERN is a succession of machines that accelerate particles to increasingly higher energies."

So if we wish to generate any sort of particle and than convert it to all list of atoms and molecular as water, we must use real accelerator with embedded magnetic power.
The BBT doesn't offer any magnetic accelerator.
However, we have unlimited numbers of those kind of accelerators in our Universe.
We call them accretion disc, but they are the biggest magnetic accelerators in the Universe.
We see there particles orbiting at almost a speed of light in a hot plasma of 10^9 c.
We also see that real Atoms and molecular are ejected outwards from that magnetic accelerator.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation about that creation process.
It also gives a clear explanation about the energy source that is requested for that activity:
I have clearly explained the energy source for the mass creation process at the accretion disc:
Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

So now.
Let's assume that you have no idea about BBT or theory D.
Which kind of theory gives answer for the source of new energy?
Which kind of theory gives answer for how that new energy can be transformed into real particles/atoms/molecular?
Is it BBT or Theory D

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/03/2020 11:46:48
I would like to add the following:
The basic idea in the BBT of the first creation of matter could be perfectly OK.
Somehow or someway the Universe had to start with some matter.
All is needed is just one BH.
So, the BBT must explain the first creation of something - not everything.
That something is just a single/first BH that has the ability to create new particles in its Photon sphere as was explained:

15. Photon Sphere
I'm really excited. I have just found an article which confirms the creation zone of new particles between the accretion ring and the event horizon.
This aria is called – Photon sphere (I was not aware about that name).
Please look at the following image:
https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/black-hole.cfm
It is stated:
"Just outside the event horizon of the BH, gravity is strong enough to bend their paths so that we see a bright ring surrounding a roughly circular dark shadow."
However, they think that this radiation is coming from the outwards accretion disc or actually from the plasma in that accretion disc:
"Although the black hole itself is dark, photons are emitted from nearby hot plasma in jets or an accretion disc."
"As charged particles go around, they accelerate, causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation."
This is a severe mistake.
As Newton has told us very clear in his cannon ball experimental, matter that moves to lower radius, can't increase the orbital velocity and can't get higher orbital acceleration.
Therefore, the only way to generate this radiation between the event horizon to the innermost accretion ring, is by new created particle pairs at the photon sphere.
Due to the location of that zone it is also clear that the orbital velocity should be much higher than just 0.3c (as it is in the accretion disc). I would assume that the orbital velocity at the Photon sphere is almost as high as the speed of light.
The innermost accretion ring is called – innermost stable orbit. That shows that our scientists see the difference between the stable orbit at the innermost excretion ring to the aria of the new pair production that is called Photon sphere.
They also claim that the plasma in the accretion disc is made of broken Atoms - free electrons and nuclei.
"Black holes trap nearby gases in their gravitational pull and whip them around in an orbit at immense speeds. The gas material gets very hot and breaks apart into its constituent positive nuclei and negative electrons, not bound together as an atom. This hot mass of free electrons and nuclei is called a plasma."
But they don't understand that the process works the other way. The excretion disc doesn't break down the atoms to positive nuclei and negative electrons in that plasma. If that was the case, than as most of that matter is ejected outwards, we should see mainly broken atoms that are ejected from the excretion disc. However, we mainly see real Atoms and molecular that are ejected from the excretion disc. That ejected matter is actually ejected upwards/downwards as Twin molecular jet stream.
Therefore, the excretion disc is actually forming new Atoms and molecular from the new created particles that are ejected to that aria from the Photon sphere.

Once that first BH is created, than Theory D can take place and easily explain the evolvement of the whole infinite Universe from this single BH.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2020 13:13:36
Well, if you don't know abut the source of energy for the BBT, than how can you support this theory?
OK, setting aside the fact that no energy is required- per Halc's comment earlier, the answer to your question is "just fine thanks. There's no contradiction there".

Your comment is like saying, "How can you believe in honey if you can't explain how bees fly?"

Do you not see how that's absurd?
There is evidence of the existence of honey, regardless of any level of ignorance on how it comes to exist.

There is evidence of the big bang, even if we don't know the details of how it exists.

And that's why this thread has posts like this.



Yes I do

LOL, you don't even understand how conservation of energy works.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/03/2020 14:41:54
Dave, matey, get a girlfriend.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2020 18:23:38
Once that first BH is created

And how did that happen?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/03/2020 14:50:17
Once that first BH is created
And how did that happen?

Dear Kryptid
As usual, you ask me a clever question - and you force me to make some more homework.
If one day I will get a reward for my discovery, I insist that you and Halc will share it with me.
You both have really helped me with this work.

In order to find a solution for your question, I have looked at the web and found the following article:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
"The black hole is 13 billion light years from Earth, meaning that it formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang when stars were only just beginning to take shape".
"Professor Simcoe said: "If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses – it's unrealistic"
"The discovery put the Big Bang theory in doubt"
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
.

This clear observation proves that the BBT is just incorrect.
In the same token, based on Theory D it was expected to see many  BHs at any distance from us.
Therefore, this observation confirms theory D.
If we had the correct technology, we should see BHs at 20 BLY away, 1,000 BLY and even one Million BYL away.
Actually, this one is relatively quite young BH comparing to the real age of our Universe

Please be aware that this observation was made in 2017. So, our scientists already know about this problem for the last three years.
However, as was accepted, our science community still supports the BBT. They will do whatever is needed to hold the BBT forever and ever and under any kind of contradiction.

In any case, with regards to your question -
It is clear that somehow energy is needed to create the first BH.
Therefore, the basic idea from the BBT of creating something due to a big bang could be perfectly OK.
However, the BBT is based on assumptions over assumptions. You take one and the whole theory is none relevant.
For example – The BBT is based on the assumption that our universe is homogeneous, and isotropic. This is incorrect. Not in small scale and not in large scale. The assumption that the energy of the BBT was uniformly distributed everywhere and the net gravitational potential was therefore near zero, and there was no one point to which everything could collapse is just incorrect.
Hence, if there was a big bang or any sort of bang, everything should collapse to one point at the same moment of the bang. That would create the first BH. It might be a tinny BH, however it must spin. The spinning velocity would generate the requested magnetic field that is needed to create new particles pair at the photon sphere. Once the photon sphere stars to generate new partials pair, the magnetic accelerator (the accretion disc) starts its mission to form the first New Hydrogen atom in whole Universe.
So, there is a big difference between the BBT and theory D.
Based on the BBT, the Big Bang should create everything. However, based on theory D just something as a BH should be good enough..
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/04/2020 05:12:57
Expansion

Based on theory D, there is no need to set any space Expansion. We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.
So how it really works:
Once upon a time a new Born BH had arrived to our Infinite Universe. It was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space.
Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field to create new particle pairs at the Photon Sphere.  .
One particle from those new created pair had been eaten by this first BH, while the opposite charged particle had been ejected outwards to the magnetic accelerator that we call now - accretion disc..
This BH will increase its mass and energy over time. It will also be converted to the first Massive BH Hosting a dwarf galaxy. Later on it will be converted to a SMBH hosting a mighty spiral galaxy as the Milky Way.
It will generate new atoms, molecular, Asteroids, Moons, Planets, Stars and even it own baby BHs.
So, this first BH will become the mother the first matter in the Universe.
As we all know - Mothers do not eat their children. Therefore, also this first BH has no intention or need to eat its Babies.
Over time all the new created matter, stars BH's…will be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
Our milky way acts as one of the biggest stars sprinkler in the Universe. Therefore we see more stars outside the galaxy than in the galaxy.
Ejection Velocity (Ve) – The average velocity of the ejected Stars/BHs from the Galaxy.
Each one of the second generation baby BHs will start to create new matter and over time it will be converted to MBH. At that time it might host a new dwarf galaxy while creating other new baby BHs.
Maturity Time (Tm) - The time that it takes to a new born BH till it starts to generate its own baby BHs. I assume that by that time it will host a dwarf galaxy and it will drift away from its Mother galaxy at Ve velocity.
Let's assume that all the new babies are drifting away at the same line direction.
So, the second generation of BHs are drifting away from the first BH at Ve. The next generation will drift away from the first BH at 2Ve After n generation, the relative velocity between should be nVe.
Based on my calculation:
Let's assume that Ve is equal to the orbital velocity of our Sun around the Galaxy = 220 Km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Therefore, after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first galaxy).
We can see it as a rocket over rocket over….rocket. 1370 times.
It will take it = Te * 1370 generations
Therefore, as far as we look, we see that galaxies are drifting at a faster velocity from us.
There is no limit for that velocity.
After m * 1370 generations, the relative velocity will be M times the speed of light.
As the Universe is infinite, at the far end there are galaxies that are drifting away from us at almost infinite speed.
However, please be aware that new born BHs are ejected away in all directions. Therefore, in any nearby aria we see that the galaxies are moving in all directions.
Therefore, there is no need to space expansion or dark energy to explain the ultra velocity of the far end galaxies.
We only need to understand, that it is achievable after long enough time.
There is a clear observation for the ejection process. We see that Triangulum (relatively small spiral galaxy – 40 Billion stars)  is directly drifting away from it mother Andromeda (A supper massive spiral galaxy with about one Million Billion stars)
As they are drifting away from each other, they set hydrogen "bridge" between them:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611193632.htm
"The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."

This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2020 11:42:22
Based on theory
Who cares?
Theory D is based on a false start.

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
Non sequitur.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/04/2020 15:06:43
Quote
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
Non sequitur.
Why don't you read my answer:
There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.
Didn't you see my reply at:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78586.0

Let's focus on the Black body radiation in the CMB:
Black Body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
 
"An ideal body is now defined, called a blackbody. A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.[10]"
In the article it is also stated that:
"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
 
1.This insulated enclosure could be a box at any size. As long as it is insulated enclosure  box, we should get the Black body radiation inside that box.  Let's assume that we can set a box of isolated enclosure in the open space at the size of 1BLY.  The Milky way will be located inside that box. It is quite clear that the internal radiation will be a black body radiation.
 
2. Let's set 1000 1BLY boxes next to each with a similar density. So, we get a bar of 1000BLY. As the radiation at each 1BLY box is black body, than if we eliminate the walls between the boxes in that bar, we still should get a black body radiation inside that 1000 BLY Bar. So, as long as the 1000Bly bar is isolated enclosure  than we must get the black body radiation..
 
3. Now, let's add to this bar an infinite no of 1BLY boxes, and eliminate the walls between the boxes, Therefore,  we should get an infinite bar (with the same density at any location in the bar). In this case it is clear that as long the infinite bar is still isolated enclosure  we should get a black body radiation in that bar.
 
4. However, as it goes to the infinity, it is clear that even if we open the walls of the last end box (which is located at the infinity), it shouldn't have any negative impact on the internal black body radiation in that bar (assuming that we measure the radiation far enough from that last open walls). So, we have got an infinite bar with open ended walls which still has an internal black body radiation. Let's call it B- bar.
 
5. If we now set an infinite number of B- bar, one above the other. We should get an infinite rectangle. We already know that this infinite rectangle has an open ended (Left & right) and it has a black body radiation.
In the same token, if we open the Up/down edges (at the infinity) we still should have a black body radiation in that infinite rectangle. Let's call it C-rectangle
 
6. If we set an infinite number of C- rectangle, one after the other. We should get an infinite cube (It goes to the infinity in all directions.) This cube goes to the infinity and has an open ended at all directions.
So, technically, there is no end for this cube, it is an infinite cube and therefore it should hold an internal black body radiation.
 
Conclusions:

The black body radiation in our Universe proves that it MUST be infinite.
Any location at this universe is located at the infinity from any edge. Therefore, any location in that universe could be considered as a center. In the same token we should get a black body radiation at any point.

Therefore, Kryptid is fully correct in his following message:

As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center".

However, that could be correct ONLY if our universe is infinite.

Lets try to understand how black body radiation works at the Sun.
It is quite clear that as long as the radiation is at the surface of the Sun, than it has a black body radiation.
However, as it is emitted from the Sun, the black body radiation is lost.
Therefore, the surface of the Sun acts as isolated enclosure.
In the same token, also in atmosphere of our planet we find a black body radiation.
So, that Atmosphere is another example of black body radiation in isolated enclosure .

Therefore, our universe could hold black body radiation ONLY in the following conditions:
1.   If it is Finite – It must be in isolated enclosure. Therefore, there must be walls around the Universe. What is the chance for that?
2.   If it is Infinite – As I have proved, infinite Universe acts as a finite Universe in isolated enclosure.
Conclusion:
The ONLY possibility to see a black body radiation in the CMB is when the Universe is INFINITE
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/04/2020 13:28:48
Black body radiation:

Photosphere  is a perfect example for black body radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
As you can see in that image, "The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."
In other words:
The photons of light would be nearly in thermal equilibrium and carry a Black body radiation ONLY if most of them won't escape into the open space.
Hence, only if most of the photons in that photosphere will be forced to bounce back from the outer edge of the photosphere, they could carry a black body radiation.
Therefore, The photosphere (Blow aria),represents a finite aria with edges/boundaries that prevent from the photons from escaping to the open space. As long as most of the photons stay at that aria they will be nearly in thermal equilibrium and they would carry a Black body radiation.
We could cover this photosphere with one more layer of photosphere. In this case, the photons of light in each layer will also be nearly thermal equilibrium. Therefore, in both layers we should see a black body radiation.
If we eliminate the border between them, we still should get the black body radiation in the combined aria.
Theoretically, we could add infinite no of photospheres and get a black body radiation inside that aria.

However, infinite no of photospheres means - infinite sphere. So, if we have infinite photosphere we should get a black body radiation without any need form the photons to bounce back from the boundary of this infinite photosphere.
This shows that as our universe carries a black body radiation in its CMB, than it must be INFINITE.

Now, let's read the explanation about the black body radiation in the BBT:
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background"
"The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space. It is an important source of data on the early universe because it is the oldest electromagnetic radiation in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark."

So, the main idea in the BBT is that The CMB is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe.
However, we already know that in order for that early stage to generate a black body radiation, most of the photons in that stage, should be reflected inwards by some sort of boundary.
We already know that without an outwards boundary, there is no reflection. No reflection means no photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium and no black-body radiation.
Therefore, if we consider that early stage as some sort of photosphere that prevents from most of the photons to escape outwards, that early stage will carry a black body radiation.
However, we know that after this early stage, the inflation and expansion took place.
In those two activities, the photons had no boundary any more.
Hence, there is no boundary that could force most of the photons to bounce back.
Without it, the photons of light would not be in thermal equilibrium and therefore, they wouldn't carry a Black body radiation any more.
Therefore, the assumption that we see today the CMB that carry a black body radiation due to activity that took place 13.8 BY ago (Just after the early stage, while all of the photons escape outwards) and the Universe is finite without boundary - is a simple fantasy..

Conclusion:
An activity that took place 13.8 BY ago couldn't have any impact on the current measured CMB.
This CMB is the electromagnetic radiation of our current Universe.
As it carries a black body radiation it proves that our Universe must be infinite.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 03/04/2020 17:44:56
Non-sequiturs piled on top of non-sequiturs...
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2020 21:22:37
Why don't you read my answer:
Because you put put in the wrong place (i.e. not in this thread).
 
But now that I have read it, it doesn't actually answer the point.
I can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame.
That does not mean that a candle flame is infinitely large.


You miss the point of the "small hole in a container" as  BBR source, the walls of the container have to do the emitting and the radiation has to be observed from outside.

So this
The Milky way will be located inside that box. It is quite clear that the internal radiation will be a black body radiation.

is just wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/04/2020 06:10:00
Non-sequiturs piled on top of non-sequiturs...

Dear Kryptid

You have stated clearly in the past that our scientists don't know the real size of our Universe.
So, how can you support any sort of theory about the Universe without that key information?
If you had been requested to develop an engine to some airplane, won't you first ask about the size of that airplane?
Do you think that an engine for a toy airplane would fit to Boeing 747 and vice versa?
How our scientists wish to explain how the Universe works, while they don't have any clue about its real size?
The BBT had been developed about 70 years ago, while our scientists were positively sure that our universe is finite and compact. Therefore, the BBT had started from the idea of "singularity".
Based on this theory the age of our Universe is 13.8 BLY.
However, now we have clear observation that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
"The black hole is 13 billion light years from Earth, meaning that it formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang when stars were only just beginning to take shape".
"Professor Simcoe said: "If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses – it's unrealistic"
"The discovery put the Big Bang theory in doubt"
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”

You have stated that the BBT fully meets all the Observations.
However, this observation proves that the BBT is wrong.
So, why don't you wish to accept this clear observation that knocks down the BBT?

Don't you agree that in order to offer any sort of theory for our Universe we first must understand the real size of the Universe. How can we estimate the age of the Universe without knowing its size?

Therefore, the first stage in theory D was to estimate the size of the Universe.
As the conclusion was that the Universe is infinite than its age also must be infinite.
Don't you agree that the BBT is none relevant for the size/age of infinite Universe?
If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?
If you still don't know its size, than how do you know for sure that the Universe is not infinite?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/04/2020 09:50:32
You miss the point of the "small hole in a container" as  BBR source, the walls of the container have to do the emitting and the radiation has to be observed from outside.
Sorry
You miss the whole point of Black body radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. "
So, in order to get the black body radiation, the light entering the hole is reflected at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge.
Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation without negatively impact the creation of the black body spectrum due to the internal reflections:
Please see one more example for: "An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body_realization.svg
Again, in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.
Is it clear to you by now?

I can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame.
Sure, you can get a pretty good approximation to BBR from a candle flame, but only if around that flame there is some sort of photosphere. I assume that this photosphere is created by the air around the flame due to the high temp of the flame. If we could eliminate this photosphere, we won't get any BBR in that flame.
We can consider also the sun as some sort of a huge candle light.
So, as long as around the Sun or around the candle flame there is a photosphere, we should get the BBR.
However, it is important to highlight that the photosphere around the candle flame or around the sun is used as some sort of internal surfaces that reflects internally the light that is generated by those objects.
That does not mean that a candle flame is infinitely large.
Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.
So, if we see a radiation with a BBR it proves that there must be some sort of photosphere around the light source.
Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:
1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it
2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.
As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2020 12:20:07
Is it clear to you by now?
It was clear to me when I Learned it 30 years or more ago.

Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2020 12:21:27
Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.
No
What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/04/2020 19:18:50
It was clear to me when I Learned it 30 years or more ago.
Perfect.
So you do understand that:
in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.
And you also understand that:
Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation
Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBR
So how can you claim that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container/cavity?:
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?
It is stated clearly that: "a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation".

With regards to the different effective temperature:
Actually, if we monitor the surface temperature of the sun we should find temporarily arias/spots with different temperatures.
That doesn't negatively impact the BBR of the Sun.

If the idea of photosphere was also clear to you, why do you ask the following question:
Agree, but as long as we see a BBR coming out from that candle flame, it shows that there is some sort of photosphere around that source of light.
No
What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?

We do not discuss about "red hot iron bar" so what do you want to show in this question?
Could it be that the idea of "photosphere" is still not fully clear to you?
The "photosphere" was clearly explained by Wiki:
Photosphere  is a perfect example for black body radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png
"The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 04/04/2020 21:06:34
If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?

You don't seem to know what a non-sequitur is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

Trying to get me to tell you about the real size of the Universe in order to counter your claims is an example of shifting the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof It is not up to others to falsify your idea. It is up to you to support it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 00:34:04
We do not discuss about "red hot iron bar" so what do you want to show in this question?
Yes we did.
It's just that you didn't understand the thing we were discussing.
"Red hot" means something that's emitting BBR in the range where it's just about hot enough to start producing visible radiation.

So. like a candle flame, a red hot iron mar (or a toaster, if you like) is a source of black boy radiation.

So, once again....

What "photosphere" are you going to pretend exists around a red hot iron bar?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 00:35:51
Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBR
Which part of "no" do you not understand?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 00:39:42
So how can you claim that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container/cavity?:
Because i'm inside a part of the galaxy (as it happens, my cellar) and for reasons that will never be explained, I have stuck a bowl of  blue glass over the light fitting.

According to the local radiation in here it's well over 30,000 Kelvin.
But I'm still here.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 00:41:05
The "photosphere" was clearly explained by Wiki:
Yes, it is well enough explained.

Now, please explain to me why you think my toaster has one.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/04/2020 04:32:02
"Red hot" means something that's emitting BBR in the range where it's just about hot enough to start producing visible radiation.

So. like a candle flame, a red hot iron mar (or a toaster, if you like) is a source of black boy radiation.

Thanks for this information.
I assume that you mean "red hot iron bar" instead of "red hot iron mar"
So, you actually offer an option to generate a BBR without the need for "Photosphere".
That is perfectly OK
So, we can add the following option for our Universe to carry a a black body radiation in its CMB:

3. If the Universe acts as a "red hot iron bar" than it could carry a BBR in the CMB without the need for photosphere.

Hence, we can agree that the Universe could be finite without any need to set a Photosphere around it (if the Universe was a "red hot iron bar").
However, do you consider that this option is real?
If our scientists had considered that this option is valid, than they wouldn't offer the BBT as the only source for the BBR in the CMB.
Therefore, it is clear that even our scientists do not consider that our Universe  acts as a "red hot iron bar".
Therefore, we still have only the following two options:
Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:
1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it
2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.
As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB
Any other idea?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2020 13:23:12
Any other idea?
Yes.
That's why I posted it; three times.
Not sure why you ignored it- presumably because it's not compatible with what you want to believe.

Here it is again.

Because i'm inside a part of the galaxy (as it happens, my cellar) and for reasons that will never be explained, I have stuck a bowl of  blue glass over the light fitting.

According to the local radiation in here it's well over 30,000 Kelvin.
But I'm still here.
Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBR
Which part of "no" do you not understand?
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/04/2020 16:26:01
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?

I have already sent you my reply about those issues.
In any case:
1. How can you claim that the BBR doesn't apply if you are inside the container?
I have deeply explained that issue and backup it with articles:
You miss the whole point of Black body radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
"Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. "
So, in order to get the black body radiation, the light entering the hole is reflected at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge.
Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation without negatively impact the creation of the black body spectrum due to the internal reflections:
Please see one more example for: "An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body_realization.svg
Again, in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.
Is it clear to you by now?
It seems that you didn't understand that explanation.
So, let me use the following example:
We set a tinny hole in a cavity.
With that tiny hole we actually monitor the internal radiation in the cavity.
So you claim that if we monitor the internal radiation through that tinny hole, we should find that the radiation carry BBR, while if we monitor it from inside we shouldn't get the BBR.
Is it real? How could you believe in such unrealistic idea?
On which kind of article do you base that wrong understanding?

2. How can you also claim that if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures we shouldn't get the BBR?
In wiki it is stated that a cavity could be consider as an oven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
Black-body radiation becomes a visible glow of light if the temperature of the object is high enough.[21] The Draper point is the temperature at which all solids glow a dim red, about 798 K.[22] At 1000 K, a small opening in the wall of a large uniformly heated opaque-walled cavity (such as an oven)
It is stated that:
"No matter how the oven is constructed, or of what material, as long as it is built so that almost all light entering is absorbed by its walls, it will contain a good approximation to black-body radiation."
So, inside that oven there could be one heating element or unlimited no of elements. As long as it is built so that almost all light entering is absorbed by its walls, it will contain a good approximation to black-body radiation.
I have also offered the sun as a perfect example for black body radiation while at its surface you can find different arias at different temperatures at any given moment:
With regards to the different effective temperature:
Actually, if we monitor the surface temperature of the sun we should find temporarily arias/spots with different temperatures.
That doesn't negatively impact the BBR of the Sun.
So how can you claim that if there are several light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures it won't work?
Again, on which kind of article do you base that wrong understanding?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/04/2020 06:13:19
Infinite Universe

I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.
If we go to the infinity at our left side, we will stay at the left.
Same issue with any other direction that we will chose to go.
Our Universe isn't singularity and there is no expansion in space.
It is fixed in short range as it is fixed in a very long rang.
Only the matter/Galaxies are expanding in all directions.
I have already explained why the farther galaxies are residing at a faster speed.
The Atlantic Ocean had been created due to a 2cm drifts per year.
So, a very vast ocean could be created if we give it enough time.
In the same token an infinite Universe could be created from a single BH after long enough time.
Therefore, in order to generate an infinite Universe an infinite time is needed.
Hence, our Universe must be infinite in its age.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 07/04/2020 06:59:26
I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.

Nope. It's still a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/04/2020 19:10:15
I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.
Nope. It's still a non-sequitur.
Dear Kryptid

Sorry, it seems that I have missed your following reply.

If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?

You don't seem to know what a non-sequitur is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
Trying to get me to tell you about the real size of the Universe in order to counter your claims is an example of shifting the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof It is not up to others to falsify your idea. It is up to you to support it.

As Usual - thanks for your great answer.
You claim that my understanding is incorrect due to  burden of proof.
So, let's try to understand what is the meaning of burden of proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."
 
Let's focus on: "the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position" and see the diffrence in our positions with regards to CMB - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation:

What is Radiation?
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/what_is.html
Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space at the speed of light. This energy has an electric field and a magnetic field associated with it, and has wave-like properties. You could also call radiation “electromagnetic waves”.

It is also stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
"The word radiation arises from the phenomenon of waves radiating (i.e., traveling outward in all directions) from a source. This aspect leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are applicable to all types of radiation. Because such radiation expands as it passes through space, and as its energy is conserved (in vacuum), the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source. Like any ideal law, the inverse-square law approximates a measured radiation intensity to the extent that the source approximates a geometric point."

Therefore, if there is a constant source of radiation at a given point source, than "the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
Therefore, we can easily calculate the amplitude of the radiation at any given distance from the point of source.

Based on those explanations it is quite clear that the radiation that we monitor at our location is a combined radiation that we get from any radiation source point around us.
Therefore, the CMB represents the combined radiation that we get from our current Universe. That radiation is generated by almost infinite number of radiation source points in the whole Universe. It could be a nearby star or very far end galaxy.
So simple and clear.
This explanation fully meets the basic element in Burden_of_proof "to provide sufficient warrant for their position".

However, our scientists think differently,
Somehow they are positively sure that the CMB is a remnant from an early stage of the universe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation".

Why is it?
Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?

I hope that you agree that any bang, even if we call it a Big bang isn't a constant source of radiation.
So, this big bang might generate an ultra high temporary radiation that travels at the speed of light.
However, once it cross the space, it should gone forever especially as it took place 13.8 BY ago.
So, how could it be that our scientists believe that the radiation from the Big bang could stay with us after so long time?

Sorry, this big mistake of our scientists fully meets your explanation about Formal_fallacy.
If our scientists can't show how the CMB radiation could stay in space for almost 13.8 BY, than they violet the basic element in Burden_of_proof "to provide sufficient warrant for their position

So, the CMB radiation should be the radiation of our current Universe, while any other assumption is a clear Formal_fallacy even if it is made by our scientists.

The other issue is Black body radiation in the CMB.
Why our scientists are so sure that a bang could generate a black body radiation?
In all the explanations about black body radiation, I have never ever found even one word about bang that could generate that kind of radiation.
As an example, we get a radiation from a supernova. Do we see there a black body signature in the radiation spectrum?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
In that article they deeply discuss about the radiation of the supernova. However, you won't find even one word about black body radiation.

So, if our scientists claim that the black body is due to the Big bang, than they must "provide sufficient warrant for their position" that a bang can generate a black body radiation.
Without it, the assumption that the CMB is a remnant from an early stage of the universe is just one more Formal_fallacy from our scientists.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/04/2020 19:23:03
I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.
No.
If I was inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a  nice even temperature, and the lights off, I would see black body radiation in whichever direction I looked corresponding to the temperature of the walls- probably about 280K.

That does not mean that the cellar is infinite.

In the same way, when we look out and see the CMB, it does not mean the universe is infinite.

You are still presenting an unjustified assertion.
The burden of proof is on you.

It would also be on you if you were claiming, without valid grounds, that the Universe is finite.

The point is simple.
You make the claim; you have to prove it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 04:49:58
Hello Bored chemist

Thanks for your excellent example:
If I was inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a  nice even temperature, and the lights off, I would see black body radiation in whichever direction I looked corresponding to the temperature of the walls- probably about 280K.

So, you actually offer that wine cellar as an example for a container/cavity.
You show that a black body radiation could be generated at that wine cellar while you are inside.
Therefore, you have just proved that we can stay at the container and get a black body radiation.
Hence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrong:

Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container.....?
So, yes, you can be inside the container and still get a BBR.

With regards to the following:
That does not mean that the cellar is infinite.
In the same way, when we look out and see the CMB, it does not mean the universe is infinite.
Yes, I fully agree with you.
The black body radiation does not mean that the wine cellar is infinite.
It just shows that it has walls all around it.
So, the wine cellar is a perfect example for a black body radiation in finite object that is surrounded by walls (or photosphere).

Therefore, I have stated that due to the BBR there are two options for our Universe:
So, if we see a radiation with a BBR it proves that there must be some sort of photosphere around the light source.
Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:
1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it
2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.
As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB

Therefore, as we can't prove that our universe acts as a wine cellar (that fully covered with walls or photosphere), than finite Universe is clearly can't generate a black body radiation.
In the same way, when we look out and see the CMB, it does not mean the universe is infinite.
You are still presenting an unjustified assertion.
The burden of proof is on you.
I hope that by now you finely agree that once we take out the walls from the wine cellar (while you stay at the center of that object), you won't get the BBR any more.
Therefore, a finite Universe without walls all around it can't meet the BBR signature that we see in the CMB.
Hence, the only way to get a BBR from any kind of sphere without walls is when this sphere is infinite.
I have already deeply explained that issue.
Therefore, as our Universe generate BBR in its CMB (and as it has no walls or photosphere all around it), than it must be a infinite.
This conclusion fully meets the burden of proof as it fully provides sufficient warrant for this position.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 07:42:02
If I was inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a  nice even temperature, and the lights off, I would see black body radiation in whichever direction I looked corresponding to the temperature of the walls- probably about 280K.
I would like to focus on the CMB temperature.
We see exactly the same temperature from all directions.
So, if our Universe was finite, than we had to be located exactly at the center of this finite Universe.
What is the chance for that?
Is it 1/10^100 or shall we agree on just zero?
Hence, a finite universe would never generate exactly the same CMB temp in all directions (if we aren't located exactly at the center).
Therefore, this is key evidence that our Universe must be infinite.
At infinite sphere there is no meaning for a center point.
Any point at the infinity universe could be considered as its center.
The point is simple.
You make the claim; you have to prove it.
Agree
I have just proved that our universe must be infinity in order to supply exactly the same radiation from any direction at any location.

However, now it is the obligation of our scientists to answer the following questions:
1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe
2. How could it be that a BBR is created by a Bang (even if we call it big bang)? Please offer valid explanation for that!!!
3. How "a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation" could stay in the open space for more than 13.8BY, while I have offered an article from wiki that radiation should cross the space at the speed of light.
4. Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point? Why we do not calculate the radiation amplitude by "inverse-square law"
Please remember, it was stated at wiki:
"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
If you claim that time represents distance, than we are currently moving away from the singularity point of the Big bang at almost the speed of light. However, as the radiation is also moving at the speed of light, than how could it be that we get any radiation from that Big Bang that took place 13.8 BY ago?
5. If the universe is finite, than how could it be that we see the same CMB temp in all directions?
6. How the CMB could carry a BBR while there are no walls around our finite Universe.
Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere. Without a cover for our finite Universe, there is no way to keep a BBR in our universe for so long time.

Hence, without real answers for all of those questions, it is clear that our scientists have totally failed in the burden of proof as they can't provide sufficient warrant for their position...
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 09:52:09
We see exactly the same temperature from all directions.
So, if our Universe was finite, than we had to be located exactly at the center of this finite Universe.
What is the chance for that?

No, once again, imagine the wine cellar scenario.
It wouldn't matter if I was nearer to (say) the South wall, the radiation would look exactly the same, not matter which way I faced unless I looked at myself.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 09:57:13
Hence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrong:
No
Once again, you missed the most important bit.
inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a  nice even temperature, and the lights off,

Obviously, if I'm in the cellar and I look at myself, I see a different temperature.
But the effect I have on the cellar as a whole, is small.
Someone peeping in through a small hole in the wall  would see my spectrum, or the wall's or some combination, depending where they looked.
That's why you can't say that a small hole in a container gives BBR unless you have no light source in the container.
And that's why you are wrong.



Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 10:00:37
Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point?
Because there isn't a "point".
The big bang is everywhere.

You really need to try to understand  the theory before you try to undermine it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 10:02:11
How "a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation" could stay in the open space for more than 13.8BY, while I have offered an article from wiki that radiation should cross the space at the speed of light.
Because the universe is big.
Even at the speed of light it takes the radiation billions of years to cross it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 10:03:32
Hence, without real answers for all of those questions, it is clear that our scientists have totally failed in the burden of proof as they can't provide sufficient warrant for their position...
It's time I got back to work but, trust me, all those questions have perfectly sensible answers.
It's just that you haven't done your homework and found out what they are.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 12:32:54
Dear Bored chemist

First let me thank you for all your efforts in responding my messages.
I'm looking forwards for your homework/answers.

It's time I got back to work but, trust me, all those questions have perfectly sensible answers.
It's just that you haven't done your homework and found out what they are.

However, would you kindly backup your understanding by real physics law?

For example, you claim that the radiation would look exactly the same at any location at the finite Universe::

Quote
We see exactly the same temperature from all directions.
So, if our Universe was finite, than we had to be located exactly at the center of this finite Universe.
What is the chance for that?
No, once again, imagine the wine cellar scenario.
It wouldn't matter if I was nearer to (say) the South wall, the radiation would look exactly the same, not matter which way I faced unless I looked at myself.

Quote
Hence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrong
No
Once again, you missed the most important bit.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:23:03
inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a  nice even temperature, and the lights off,

Obviously, if I'm in the cellar and I look at myself, I see a different temperature.
But the effect I have on the cellar as a whole, is small.
Someone peeping in through a small hole in the wall would see my spectrum, or the wall's or some combination, depending where they looked.
That's why you can't say that a small hole in a container gives BBR unless you have no light source in the container.
And that's why you are wrong.

So you discuss on a cellar. As I have already explained a cellar has walls around it and therefore it acts as cavity.
It generates BBR and I even might agree with you that is could generate the same temp.
However, we discuss on a finite Universe without any walls around it while we are located at any location in that Universe (even almost at its edge)..
So, if for example we are located closer to the left side edge of a finite Universe (without walls), than the total radiation sources from the left side should be much lower that the right side.
Therefore, based on the inverse-square law, the combined radiation from the left side should be lower than the right side.
This is a simple outcome due to physics law. Therefore, the radiation temp at the left side should be much lower than the right side.
I have backup this explanation by article from Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
"The word radiation arises from the phenomenon of waves radiating (i.e., traveling outward in all directions) from a source. This aspect leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are applicable to all types of radiation. Because such radiation expands as it passes through space, and as its energy is conserved (in vacuum), the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source. Like any ideal law, the inverse-square law approximates a measured radiation intensity to the extent that the source approximates a geometric point."

Therefore, if there is a constant source of radiation at a given point source, than "the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
Therefore, we can easily calculate the amplitude of the radiation at any given distance from the point of source.

Based on those explanations it is quite clear that the radiation that we monitor at our location is a combined radiation that we get from any radiation source point around us.
Therefore, the CMB represents the combined radiation that we get from our current Universe. That radiation is generated by almost infinite number of radiation source points in the whole Universe. It could be a nearby star or very far end galaxy.

So, it is clearly stated that: "the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source"
Hence, if you still think differently, than please backup your understanding by real article & physics law.
Just to say "No" because I know better than you, wouldn't bring us to the real solution.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 12:40:44
"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source"
And again, you miss the point.
"from a point source"
A wall is not a point source.

Please go and learn some physics.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 12:47:19
And again, you miss the point.
"from a point source"
A wall is not a point source.

Please go and learn some physics.
Any matter, any star and any galaxy acts as point of source in our universe.
Therefore, if at the left side there are much less points of source with regards to the right side, than by definition the combined radiation temp at the left side should be lower than the right side.
Why is it so difficult?
Remember - we discuss on a Universe without walls.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 14:36:41
Remember - we discuss on a Universe without walls.
OK, let's start with the case where there are well defined walls  like my cellar.
When you get that right, we can move on.
OK, imagine I look at the wall through a tube- like, for example, the cardboard one from the middle of a toilet roll.
And imagine that the wall is a perfect crystal with lots of atoms in a regular array.
Now imagine counting how many atoms I can see through that tube.
Well, it depends on the aspect ratio of the tube. That defines the angle over which I can see.
Lets say the tube is 9cm long and 3cm in diameter.
And let's also assume, that I'm 90cm from one wall (South) , and 900 cm from the other (North)

OK facing South, I can see a patch of wall 30 cm in diameter and facing North I can see a patch that's 300 cm in diameter.
One circle is 100 times the area of the other.
So I can see 100 times as many atoms when I look North as wann I look South.
But (and this is why it matters that a wall is different from a point) each atom is 10 times further away and, because of the inverse square law that applies to point sources (like atoms, but not like walls) I only receive 100 times less light from each atom.

So I see 100 times more atoms, each giving me 1/100 times as much light.
The two effects cancel exactly.

So the light I see does not depend on the distance from the wall.

Now, if you think about it, you will see that the same thing happens regardless of the distances to the walls, or the length or diameter of the tube.

So the tube might as well not be there.
You will still get exactly the same degree of illumination, regardless of your distance from the wall.
The inverse square law applies to every atom in the wall, but the number of atoms you can see increases as you move away so the two effects exactly cancel.

So, next time I suggest that you go and learn some physics, perhaps you should do so.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 16:53:13
OK, let's start with the case where there are well defined walls  like my cellar.
When you get that right, we can move on.
You still focus on a cellar which has walls all around it, while I discuss on a sphere/universe without walls.
Do you claim that our universe should behave like a cellar?
If so, than you actually claim that there must be walls around our Universe.
If there are no walls around our universe, than your example about a cellar is none applicable for our universe.
How can we understand each other while I discuss about a universe without walls while you insist to discuss on a cellar that represents a finite Universe with walls around it?
So, would you kindly take a decision on which kind of Universe we discuss on?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 19:19:52
You still focus on a cellar which has walls all around it,
Have you forgotten who introduced the idea of a closed container here?
"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
 

I'm trying to set you straight on the easy stuff, before we get to the universe.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 19:55:17
Quote
You still focus on a cellar which has walls all around it,
Have you forgotten who introduced the idea of a closed container here?
Quote
"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"
I'm trying to set you straight on the easy stuff, before we get to the universe.
As I have stated, if the Universe was finite with walls around it (as a cellar) than it should be perfectly OK.
However, if I understand it correctly, our scientists do not consider that there are walls around the Universe.
So, a Cellar can't represent our Universe.
Therefore, when we discuss on our universe there are only two options:
1. a finite Universe without any walls around it
2. Infinite Universe
Do you agree with that?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 20:09:14
So, would you kindly take a decision on which kind of Universe we discuss on?
If we are talking about the universe we are in, neither of us gets to decide what type it is.
It is what it is.

You made this claim about it.
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.

So far, you have failed to justify that claim.
There is no causal link between the existence of the CMB and the universe being infinite in size.

There's also a well known observation which tells us that the universe is almost certainly not infinite in both age and extent. You have probably made the observation yourself

It gets dark at night.

Now, let's see if you are going to





Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2020 20:30:55
If we are talking about the universe we are in, neither of us gets to decide what type it is.
It is what it is.
Well, you can't decide for me.
However, you are more than welcome to assume that the Universe is what it is and abandon the discussion about its type and shape.
I have no intention to join you in your decision.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2020 20:50:23
If we are talking about the universe we are in, neither of us gets to decide what type it is.
It is what it is.
Well, you can't decide for me.
However, you are more than welcome to assume that the Universe is what it is and abandon the discussion about its type and shape.
I have no intention to join you in your decision.


Do you know what "neither" means?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/04/2020 06:41:45
Do you know what "neither" means?
The meaning of  "neither" by Google translate:
"not the one nor the other of two people or things; not either."
"used to introduce a further negative statement."
That exactly shows your negative approach.
You only focus on "further negative statement"
Therefore, you are totally stuck at the first line of this theory - The size of the Universe.
Who cares?
Theory D is based on a false start.
Our scientists have no clue about the size of the Universe.
Therefore you also don't care about it.
You are quite satisfy from the current status that they "Don't Know". As they don't know than nobody should know!!!
Any attempt to "know" or evaluate the size of the Universe (Finite or Infinite) Must be a "false start" and a severe violation.
In the same token, it is a severe violation to consider that there is an error with the BBT.
This theory had been offered at the same time that the first transistor had been developed.
However, while our electronic engineer community worked on new developments and delivered breakthrough improvements almost on a daily basis, our science community worked very hard to keep that old theory alive.
They protect the BBT as it was the Holy Crown of our universe. No one should touch it. If you dare, you are out of the community.
Just think how miserable could be our life if the engineering community were still stuck with the Holy Crown of the first transistor.
Our science community don't care that there are clear observations that fully contradicts the BBT.
From their point of view, the BBT must stay with us forever and ever and under any sort of contradiction.
Therefore, any person that is member in the science community must fight for the BBT.
Hence, we all must accept the BBT as is and we all must fully agree that the Universe "is what it is" although our scientists have no clue about "what it is"
It is what it is.
Therefore, nobody in this universe should even try to think "what it really is".
From your point of view our universe should be compared to a cellar, while you have no ability to evaluate its size from there.
You don't even try to read my theory and claim that "Theory D is based on a false start" as your main mission is to reject any attempt against the BBT.
Therefore, you have no willing even to think about a finite sphere without walls.
I fully respect your believe in the BBT.
Therefore, I can't help as long as you stuck at that cellar and your main mission is to prove that whatever I say must be incorrect.
If one day you will know the size of the Universe, than please do not hesitate and share it with us.

Thanks again for all your efforts


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 09:00:35
Therefore, you are totally stuck at the first line of this theory - The size of the Universe.
No.
Your idea is stuck at the first line because, as I and others have pointed out, it does not make sense.

Do you now understand what "If we are talking about the universe we are in, neither of us gets to decide what type it is." means.
Do you understand why "
I have no intention to join you in your decision.
makes no sense, because it isn't my decision.
I didn't build the Universe.
I didn't decide to give it a wall or not.

Nor did you so it's silly for you to say


So, would you kindly take a decision on which kind of Universe we discuss on?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 09:02:23
Our scientists have no clue about the size of the Universe.
That's wrong, but irrelevant.
You made a false assertion in your "theory".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/04/2020 09:38:21
Our scientists have no clue about the size of the Universe.
That's wrong, but irrelevant.
If they know the size, than why don't they share it with us?
You made a false assertion in your "theory".
Yes, I fully understand your point of view.
It is a severe "false assertion" to offer a "theory" that contradicts the BBT.
If we clearly observe that the BBT is incorrect we should consider it as a "false assertion"
Just one example for you:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
"The black hole is 13 billion light years from Earth, meaning that it formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang when stars were only just beginning to take shape".
"Professor Simcoe said: "If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses – it's unrealistic"
"The discovery put the Big Bang theory in doubt"
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
Our scientists are so "very puzzling" as they stuck with the BBT for so long time.

There is no room for puzzling theory in electronic engineering.
If the theory doesn't meet the observations - you must set it in the garbage.
If you can find only one real observation that contradicts Theory D, than we should set it deeply in the garbage.
However, it is forbidden to disqualify a theory by another none relevant theory.
Only real observations!
No.
Your idea is stuck at the first line because, as I and others have pointed out, it does not make sense.

"Make sense" isn't a real observation. It is actually a "sense" that might be based on other none relevant theory.
So, please try to find only one real observation that contradicts theory –D and I will be the first one to set it in the garbage.

Based on “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered by Martin Luther King: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed"
I also have a dream that one day our science community will rise up and live out the true meaning of all observations in our Universe!!!



Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 12:21:59
If they know the size, than why don't they share it with us?
While the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown, it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe


Yes, I fully understand your point of view.
No you do not.
It's not an issue of whether or not it contradicts BBT.
It's a straightforward error in logic.
You assert that something follows from something else.
There is, in fact, no such deductive relation.

If the theory doesn't meet the observations - you must set it in the garbage.
OK, it gets dark at night.
That kills your idea.
you must set it in the garbage
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/04/2020 16:19:34
While the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown, it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
Thanks
In the article it is stated:
"While the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown,[3] it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter. In various multiverse hypotheses, a universe is one of many causally disconnected[11] constituent parts of a larger multiverse, which itself comprises all of space and time and its contents;[12] as a consequence, ‘the universe’ and ‘the multiverse’ are synonymous in such theories."

A. Entire Universe: "the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown".
So, our scientists have no clue about the size/shape of the entire universe.
That is very clear

B. Observable universe - "it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter".
So, they have good estimation about the observable universe. However, we wish to know the size of the whole Universe not just the observable universe.

C. Multiverse - In various multiverse hypotheses, a universe is one of many causally disconnected[11] constituent parts of a larger multiverse, which itself comprises all of space and time and its contents;[12] as a consequence, ‘the universe’ and ‘the multiverse’ are synonymous in such theories.

So, the Multiverse comprises all of space and time and its contents.

Few questions:

1. Based on this explanation, do you agree that the entire Universe should be bigger than the observable Universe while we have no clue about its size?
2. What is the real difference between: Universe, Entire Universe, Multiverse, space (or entire space)? Which one is bigger than the other one? Could it be that there is something bigger that all of them?
3. Which universe had been evolved from the Big bang? Is it the observable Universe, or the entire Universe?
4. Could it be that in a Multiverse, there are several/many "entire Universes"?
5. If there are several entire Universes could it be that each one of them had been evolved from a different Big bang?
6. How do we know the age of each entire Universe or the multiverse?
7. Is there something bigger from all of them together? For example: whole entire Multiverse?
8. They are not using the word "infinite". So how do they call the infinite space/Universe?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 16:31:50
However, we wish to know the size of the whole Universe not just the observable universe.
Why?
It will not matter to us.

I think you keep missing the point.
We don't know how big the universe is, but we know it is not infinite in time and space.
This is confirmed every night, when it goes dark.

You seem determined to ignore this fact.
So I'm just going to keep on pointing it out for you.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/04/2020 20:42:21
Quote
However, we wish to know the size of the whole Universe not just the observable universe.
Why?
It will not matter to us.

Is it real?
Why do you think that the information about the real size of the Universe is not matter to us?
Don't you see that a theory from infinite Universe is quite different than for a quite compact universe of only 93 BLY?
Actually, if you want to stay with the BBT than the 93 BLY is perfectly Ok.
However, if the entire Universe is really big, much bigger than the observable Universe, than how can you fit the BBT to that size?
So, what is our mission?
To keep the BBT or to get real information about our Universe?

I think you keep missing the point.
We don't know how big the universe is, but we know it is not infinite in time and space.
This is confirmed every night, when it goes dark.
What do you mean by that?
How do you know for sure that it is not 930 BLY, 93,000 BLY, close to infinite or just infinite?

Let me use the following example:
Let's assume that we are located at LA and you ask the way to NY.
I Look at the road and I can only see the first 10Km. So If I tell you that the observable road is 10 Km, would it help you to get to your destination?
If you insist, I might tell you: It will not matter to you. First cross that 10Km and then you can ask.

So sorry.
We are not looking for an explanation about the observable Universe.
We MUST first find the real size of our entire Universe.
If it is not infinite than our scientists should tell us exactly its size.
Just to say that it is more than 93 BLY is really none relevant.
The size is more important than any current theory.
Let's assume that we could only see our solar system or only the Milky Way galaxy
So, you do understand that a theory for only one solar system in the entire Universe could be different than a theory for only one galaxy in that Universe.
In the same token a theory for a universe of 93,000 BLY might be different than a theory for 93 BLY.
If Our scientists have no clue about the exact size/shape of the entire Universe or Multiverse than their theory is really none relevant.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 09/04/2020 20:50:05
We MUST first find the real size of our entire Universe.

Why?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2020 22:06:53
What do you mean by that?
I mean that the universe either has a special boundary (A "wall" if you like) or it has a temporal boundary (A beginning).

I mean you are wrong when you say
Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
You are wrong.
Science knows this.
Science has known it for a very long time.

If you had studied science you would know it too.

It gets dark at night.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Lance Canham on 09/04/2020 23:05:07
An infinite Universe can only evolve, if you read my thread on dark energy and expansion. Think it through. Ask what happens when Most of the Matter that can pool in galaxies and clusters has.  what happens to what's left. Im trying to make you think here on your own. Make a picture in your head. put the textbook down.

space HAs been compressed around these remaining Black holes. This space compressed around them IS the space That got stretched Between them.  Now they are free to behave different then they have. The Universe Has switched Paradigm.   

This Happened before. we called  it Big Bang.

the Whole Idea screams that there is stuff there we can not see but infer through its gravitational effect. We see that.

 It evolves so how could light travel from infinity to here. That behaviour at this scale was not possible till what you call the BB happened. An infinite universe( the only working model I can make in my behaves as our universe does) It fills in the gaps that the text book can not see past.  The text book only looks at this iteration of the cycle. we can only interact with other iterations through gravity for Obvious reasons in Physics. We can seethe one above and detect the one below.

Without the text book I can see past BB I can see expansion and inflation and dark matter simply By pinching an infinite balloon instead of Blowing up a finite one. When I can no longer Grab any more with those pinches. I take Bigger pinches and again and again.  This happened in the past. The pinches were extremely smaller and there an extremely large amounts of pinches in a small area we will call this inflation

I believe this understanding that an infinite Universe could Exist without break that law was One of the milestones That helped convince me. I already had a good feeling.  Read my thread.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 04:09:27
We MUST first find the real size of our entire Universe.
Why?
If you need to go from LA to NY don't you need to know the distance before you start your first step?
Based on this Knowledge you can decide how to get there: By walk, car, Bus, train or fly.
In the same token, before our scientists can offer a solution for our universe they Must understand its size.
Unless, you can show that the same BBT that works for 93 BLY observable Universe can also perfectly works for any size of Universe (even if it is Infinity) without any change in the theory


Quote
Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
You are wrong.
Science knows this.
Science has known it for a very long time.
How can you claim something that is totally incorrect?
In the article it was stated clearly:
Entiere Universe - "the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown", So they don't know its size
Multiverse - "the Multiverse comprises all of space and time and its contents", "In various multiverse hypotheses, a universe is one of many causally disconnected[11] constituent parts of a larger multiverse,".
In this case it is clear that they don't have a clue about the real size and shape of the Multiverse.
I'm not asking just an explanation for the observation or even entire Universe.
If there is something bigger than that as "Multiverse" - Than this is the one to focus on.
However, based on real observation, I have proved that the BBT is totally wrong explanation even the observational Universe, so how it can give any real solution for the Multiverse or almost infinite universe?
If they don't know the real size of the entire multiverse than they surly can't speak about its age.
Don't you agree that to set an infinite or almost infinite multiverse/Universe, you need more time than just 13.8 BLY?

I mean that the universe either has a special boundary (A "wall" if you like) or it has a temporal boundary (A beginning).

Can you please explain about those special boundary or wall around our entire Universe/Multiverse?
How it looks like? Is it made out of some sort of matter? How and why the BBT could set this boundary? What there is outside that boundary? If the density of our current Universe is D1. Does it mean that at the boundary the density is still D1 while just after the boundary the density drops to zero?
Let's assume that I will stay exactly at that boundary or close to the boundary. Could it be that in one direction I will get CMB at 2.7K while on the other direction it will drop almost to Zero? What about the BBR?
Therefore, could it be that as I move closer to the Boarder, the CMB will not be the same at all directions?
How far we need to be from that boarder in order to get exactly the same CMB from all directions?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 10/04/2020 06:09:49
If you need to go from LA to NY don't you need to know the distance before you start your first step?

This is a poor analogy. Even if we could travel at the speed of light, we could never get outside of the observable Universe. It doesn't matter what is or is not outside of our observable Universe because we can't go there nor can anything out there affect us.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 09:14:27

This is a poor analogy. Even if we could travel at the speed of light, we could never get outside of the observable Universe. It doesn't matter what is or is not outside of our observable Universe because we can't go there nor can anything out there affect us.

Do you mean that the BBT should give us an explanation ONLY for the observable universe?

You claim that "This is a poor analogy"
So, let me offer another analogy:
Let's assume that we were living in the deep ocean. That is whole our observable Universe.
Now, we have to find a theory how the whole observable ocean had been evolved/created.
So, do you think that as we don't see anything outside our ocean, we can totally ignore the whole universe outside that ocean?
If so, than why do we try to see to distances that are located further and further away from us?
Why don't we set a simple theory for just our galaxy or even for our solar system and close the story?
Why do we try to explain the ultra high velocity of the further galaxies?
Why don't we just ignore all of them and claim that we don't have to worry about something that we don't see.
So, this is how our science really works?
You claim: " It doesn't matter what is or is not outside of our observable"
Therefore, you clearly claim that our scientists are only taking care about the observable Universe.
In this case, they shouldn't claim anything about the activity outside that limited space of 93 BLY.
Hence, do you agree to keep the BBT for that limited observable space, while you can't say any negative message against Theory D as it highlights the activity outside that space up to the infinity?
So, Theory D and BBT could live together forever and ever.

If you still don't agree for that, than you have to confirm one of the following options:
1. There is nothing outside the observable Universe. What we see is what we have. In other words, our total, whole, entire Universe/multiverse (up to the infinity) must be totally empty outside the observable Universe.
2. There is something outside the observable.
However, as you don't see, you don't have any clue about it - as size, shape, density, age...
So how do you know for sure that it isn't very big or even infinite? If you claim that it shouldn't be much bigger than the observable, than please prove it.
3. You agree that it could be very big as Multiverse or even infinite. In this case, do you agree that the current BBT (as is) doesn't fit to this size of Universe? If you try to offer new adaptation to the BBT in order to meet the infinite Universe option, than you have to agree that current BBT (as is) is surly incorrect.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 12:38:47
If you need to go from LA to NY don't you need to know the distance before you start your first step?
Ask Columbus.
How can you claim something that is totally incorrect?
I should ask you the same question.
In the article it was stated clearly:
Entiere Universe - "the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown", So they don't know its size
Yes, but, by implication, they know it has a size- which is the same as saying it is not infinite.

But that's not the point; WIKI can be wrong, so what it says isn't really important.
What matters is that it goes dark at night.
That simple fact is one of the most important observations in cosmology.
And you don't understand it because you are not prepared to do your homework.
Can you please explain about those special boundary or wall around our entire Universe/Multiverse?
No. I can't tell you anything about it, apart from the fact that it exists (and that this was known over 100 years before the BBT was introduced).
However, based on real observation, I have proved that the BBT is totally wrong explanation
No.
You have made a false assertion.
Because, in fact, it goes dark at night.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 14:39:49
But that's not the point; WIKI can be wrong, so what it says isn't really important.
Is it real?
If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered
Next time, please try to read the whole article before you offer it to support your ideas

What matters is that it goes dark at night.
That simple fact is one of the most important observations in cosmology.
And you don't understand it because you are not prepared to do your homework.

The assumption that an infinite Universe could keep the light during the night is a poor fiction.
We actually get a direct light only from galaxies that are drifting away from us at a velocity which is less than a speed of light.
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
If we will draw a direct line to any direction up to the infinity, we technically should find only in this line an infinite no of galaxies. However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Therefore, we can't see them. Only 0.0..1 are located at the observable aria in our Universe.
So, the total galaxies in that line which are still located in the "observable aria" are quite neglected and therefore it goes dark at night.
Is it clear?


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 17:12:02
If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered
How can I say sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong?
Simple.
Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong.
But the important thing to do is think.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.

In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.

You say "
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
but you don't understand what it means.
There is a reason for that 13 Bly  figure.
It's the age of the universe times the speed of light,.
But you keep trying to insist on a universe that has been here "forever"- you say it has infinite age.
herefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

Well, if it was infinitely old then there would have been an infinite time for the light to get to us (not a mere 13Ga).
So, along the line you talked about, there would be a visible star.

You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about a calculation based on the age of the universe being 13 billion years, and then say it shows that the universe is infinitely old.

However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light.
That's interesting.
They are moving away from us at huge speed. They have been doing so for an infinite time.
They should all have gone away.
The sky should be devoid of stars.
But it isn't.

Seriously, clever people worked this out a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
 The universe can not have the properties you ascribed to it here
our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 10/04/2020 17:25:23
Do you mean that the BBT should give us an explanation ONLY for the observable universe?

No, it's just that we have no other choice. We can never know the full size of the Universe because we can never observe it. If you can't observe it, then you can't test hypotheses about it. If you can't test hypotheses, then you can't do science.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 21:49:17
Quote
Do you mean that the BBT should give us an explanation ONLY for the observable universe?
No, it's just that we have no other choice.
Yes we have much better choice.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation almost for any aspect in our entire Universe.
For example – I was not aware about that problem that was just highlighted by Bored chemist:

Seriously, clever people worked this out a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
"In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840), also known as the "dark night sky paradox","
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.
We can never know the full size of the Universe because we can never observe it.
Yes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:
1. Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. In a finite Universe the temperature should be lower as we get closer to the edge. The only solution for that is Infinite Universe. At that Universe, any point acts as a center
2. Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.
3. Red shift - Z=1100 this is the MOST important observation and quite challenging for me.
The red shift value for the farthest galaxy is less than 9. However, when it comes to the CMB we get a fix red shift at z=1100. That shows that somehow we get the Cosmic Microwave Background also from galaxies that are so far away that we don't see their light any more. So, somehow the CMB radiation from very far away galaxies can cross the distance and get to us, while their light had totally lost long ago. This is one challenge as the speed of the radiation is actually the same speed as light. Therefore, there must be some advantage in that movement of the CMB radiation in space as it can cross longer distances than the light itself.
The other issue is the fixed value of Z=1100. As the CMB is getting from wide spectrum of galaxies at any distance from us, I would expect to see that wide spectrum also in the CMB red shift. So, the CMB should include wide range of red shift. Let's assume from almost zero to more than just 1100.
I try to imagine infinite Universe and I can't understand why it stuck exactly at z = 1100. Why don't we see in the red shift spectrum higher and lower z values? Therefore, I have stated that this fixed factor represents a challenge for me.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 10/04/2020 22:02:27
Yes we have much better choice.
Theory D gives a perfect explanation almost for any aspect in our entire Universe.

No, what I mean is that we have no choice but to base our models on the observable Universe. It's the only part of the Universe that we can make observations of to test hypotheses.

Yes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:
1. Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. In a finite Universe the temperature should be lower as we get closer to the edge. The only solution for that is Infinite Universe. At that Universe, any point acts as a center

Bored Chemist already explained why this is wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 23:39:06
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.
That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".
Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. I
Lie 1
Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.
Lie 2
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/04/2020 08:09:41
Quote
Yes we have a clear observation for the infinite Universe. The data is coded in the CMB:
1. Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. In a finite Universe the temperature should be lower as we get closer to the edge. The only solution for that is Infinite Universe. At that Universe, any point acts as a center
Bored Chemist already explained why this is wrong.

CMB

Let me explain why the BBT wouldn't be able to generate the CMB that we see today:
1. Bang - A bang by itself can't generate any black body radiation. We should all agree with that. Actually even our scientists do not claim for it. They say that the CMB radiation took place during the "time of photon decoupling"  in the recombination epoch. It took place when the temperature of the universe drops below 3000 K or so, when the Universe is ~ 200,000 years old,
Please see some information in order to justify that statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling."
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr222/Cosmo/Early/recomb.html
When the temperature of the universe drops below 3000 K or so, when the Universe is ~ 200,000 years old, the electrons and nuclei combine to form atoms. No free electrons are running around, so photons can free stream and matter decouples from radiation. This is a fundamentally important time in the Universe's history: called the epoch of recombination. The Universe becomes transparent, we see it as the microwave background, and structure can start to form...

However, by that time our yong universe was already long after the inflation time and deep into the expantion. Therefore, at that time (200,000 years after the Big Bang) it was already expanding at almost the speed of light. Therefore, it acts as a container that its walls are moving away at the speed of light.
In this condition, there is no way to generate any sort of Black body radiation.
In order to set a Black body radiation we must have a back body radiator as: cavity, cellar Oven or container.
The radiation must bounces around inside the back body radiator to form the black body radiation.
As I have already explained, by the time that the CM had been created, the universe was already expanding at the speed of light. Therefore, the radiation that was created due to the  photon decoupling could not bounce back from the "walls of the early Universe (due to the expansion of the Universe), therefore, technically they couldn't create any BBR.

Therefore, there is a severe contradiction in the BB theory.
In one hand it is stated that the "expansion" have set the photon decoupling process:
"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since.... since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time."
However that same expansion also have killed any possibility for BBR.
Therefore, there must be a Fatal error in the BBT.
This is actually just element why the CMB that we see today can't be a created by the BBT.
So let me summarize few key points:
1. Our universe has no walls around it. This is a pure fiction. Our scientists do not claim for that and even in the BT they do not discuss about it. Therefore, at any given moment the expended Universe couldn't be considered as a black body radiator.
2.  "time of photon decoupling"  - that was almost a brief moment in the whole universe process. If you wish to believe that this exactly brief moment could continue to ring in our Universe forever and ever, you are dreaming.
Why the Bang itself isn't ringing? It has much more power and energy that this "poor" photon decoupling process.
So, this is just a fiction. It is just so unrealistic to take a brief moment in the life process of our Universe and claim that a specific moment could continue to ring forever.
3. Radiation - How could we get any sort of radiation from that time? We know that the radiation is moving at the speed of light. The Universe is also expanding at the speed of light. So, even if there was were walls all around our Universe, that radiation from the "photon decoupling time" can't technically bounce back to us from the walls of the expanding universe. Therefore, there is no way to get this radiation even if there was a constant source of that photon decoupling process from day one of the Universe.
3. Same CMB Radiation from all directions - Let's assume that somehow the Photon rings forever and ever. Let's also assume that somehow our universe has some imaginary walls all around. Lets also assume that although the photon is moving at the same speed of light at those imaginary walls than somehow some of the photons cloud bounced back from those walls. Let's also assume that due to some "abra cadabra" they have got their BBR.
However, based on simple physics law, we should get the amplitude based on the distance from those imaginary walls. We are clearly not at the center of the Universe. So, how could it be that we get exactly the same amplitude from all directions?
4. Red Shift - Any physics law is based on the idea that Red shift should gives a clear indication for a distance from the source of point. You have taken that z=1100 at the CMB and translate it to time from the photon decoupling process. You have totally ignored the distance and the way that the photon had to cross from its creation till the moment that it arrived to us.

Conclusion
The assumption that the CMB is due to the photon decoupling process in the BBT is a clear fiction. The CMB is due to our current Universe. It proves that our universe is Infinite.
However, you don't want to accept my explanation that is based on clear physics law. Instead you hang on that none relevant idea of photon decoupling process.
Ok

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: duffyd on 11/04/2020 10:03:22
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.
That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".
Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. I
Lie 1
Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.
Lie 2

Are you the truth police? You accuse quite a few people of lying. Troll
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: duffyd on 11/04/2020 10:09:25
If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered
How can I say sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong?
Simple.
Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong.
But the important thing to do is think.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.

In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.
In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.

You say "
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
but you don't understand what it means.

You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2020 12:16:21
If wiki isn't really important, how could you offer an article from wiki to justify your statement in one hand, while in the other hand you disqualify wiki as you don't like some message at that same article that you have just offered
How can I say sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong?
Simple.
Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong.
But the important thing to do is think.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.

In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.
Then you might be able to work out for yourself which is which.
In the particular case, you didn't seem to have understood what it said anyway.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
Is it clear?
Yes, it is clear that you still don't understand.

You say "
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:39:49
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
but you don't understand what it means.

You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?

Again, I can't tell if that's just incompetent editing or an attempt at dishonesty.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Colin2B on 11/04/2020 14:15:31
You insist many people don't get things. Why is it your business?
It is certainly his business to point out when people are wrong about science. He and @alancalverd are very experienced in science and well able to identify false thinking.
If you have specific evidence to reject what he is saying, it would be best to raise it here.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/04/2020 18:58:57
CMB Red Shift

In the following article it is stated that the red shift is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
The cosmic microwave background has a redshift of z = 1089, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang and a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years."

So, when we look at the CMB we do understand that they cross a distance of more than 46 BLY.
Please be aware that the real meaning of comoving distance is the real distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances
"Comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe, giving a distance that does not change in time due to the expansion of space (though this may change due to other, local factors, such as the motion of a galaxy within a cluster)"
So, Our scientists do not discuss on a proper distance due to the expanation:
"Proper distance roughly corresponds to where a distant object would be at a specific moment of cosmological time, which can change over time due to the expansion of the universe. "

They clearly claim that the Red Shift shows that the real distance (comoving distance) that the CMB radiation had crossed is more than 46 BLY.
In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year. That should be clear for all of us.
There is no way to fit that time in only 13.4 or even 13.8 BY from the BBT
However, if we think about infinite universe, there is high common sense in that number.
Now we know that most of the CMB radiation is coming to us from the Sphere of about 46 BLY.
As the radiation amplitude is reduced by square root, than the radiation from very far away galaxies (For examples: located at 500 BLY away or 50,000 BLY) is quite neglected upon the arrival to our location.
So, now we know that although we are living in infinite Universe, the real sphere around us that contributes the maximal radiation energy in the CMB is about 46 BLY.
I have full confidence that if we could set the simulation for our infinite Universe with its current density, we should get exactly that CMB temperature including its black body radiation. However, I still expect to see some wider spectrum in the red shift.

This key verification gives further justification for theory D and actually knocks out the BBT.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2020 20:01:12
I have full confidence that if we could set the simulation for our infinite Universe with its current density, we should get exactly that CMB temperature including its black body radiation.
You may be confident, but you are still wrong.
The maths is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox#The_paradox

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 11/04/2020 23:41:18
In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year. That should be clear for all of us.

And now you've demonstrated that you don't know how the metric expansion of space works.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/04/2020 03:57:50
However, I have solved that problem in less than two seconds by Theory D.
That's interesting.
Why not post the "solution".
Same CMB temperature in all direction - That proves that there is no center in our Universe. I
Lie 1
Black Body Radiation - As I have already stated, only two options for BBR. As our universe has no walls around it, it must be infinite. So easy and simple.
Lie 2


Shame on you
I do believe that anyone in this forum that takes the effort to open new tread and presents his ideas in science represents his own Truth.
No one lies. We can agree or disagree with any point of view.
If someone considers that the other one is liar, than he is the real liar.
In any case, before we criticize anyone, it is our obligation to understand his ideas
You didn't even try to read this tread as you were focusing only on the negative aspects..
You actually didn't even backup your negative replies with any article (except of one)..
In this one, you have contradicted your own negative feedback and we have already discussed about it.
With regards to the "dark night sky paradox" by Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers
"the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe."
That paradox doesn't contradict Theory D. I have already explained it to you.
 
The assumption that an infinite Universe could keep the light during the night is a poor fiction.
We actually get a direct light only from galaxies that are drifting away from us at a velocity which is less than a speed of light.
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
If we will draw a direct line to any direction up to the infinity, we technically should find only in this line an infinite no of galaxies. However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Therefore, we can't see them. Only 0.0..1 are located at the observable aria in our Universe.
So, the total galaxies in that line which are still located in the "observable aria" are quite neglected and therefore it goes dark at night.
Is it clear?

However, You could also easily understand it if you took the time to read the following explanation about the expansion:
Expansion

Based on theory D, there is no need to set any space Expansion. We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.
So how it really works:
Once upon a time a new Born BH had arrived to our Infinite Universe. It was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space.
Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field to create new particle pairs at the Photon Sphere.  .
One particle from those new created pair had been eaten by this first BH, while the opposite charged particle had been ejected outwards to the magnetic accelerator that we call now - accretion disc..
This BH will increase its mass and energy over time. It will also be converted to the first Massive BH Hosting a dwarf galaxy. Later on it will be converted to a SMBH hosting a mighty spiral galaxy as the Milky Way.
It will generate new atoms, molecular, Asteroids, Moons, Planets, Stars and even it own baby BHs.
So, this first BH will become the mother the first matter in the Universe.
As we all know - Mothers do not eat their children. Therefore, also this first BH has no intention or need to eat its Babies.
Over time all the new created matter, stars BH's…will be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
Our milky way acts as one of the biggest stars sprinkler in the Universe. Therefore we see more stars outside the galaxy than in the galaxy.
Ejection Velocity (Ve) – The average velocity of the ejected Stars/BHs from the Galaxy.
Each one of the second generation baby BHs will start to create new matter and over time it will be converted to MBH. At that time it might host a new dwarf galaxy while creating other new baby BHs.
Maturity Time (Tm) - The time that it takes to a new born BH till it starts to generate its own baby BHs. I assume that by that time it will host a dwarf galaxy and it will drift away from its Mother galaxy at Ve velocity.
Let's assume that all the new babies are drifting away at the same line direction.
So, the second generation of BHs are drifting away from the first BH at Ve. The next generation will drift away from the first BH at 2Ve After n generation, the relative velocity between should be nVe.
Based on my calculation:
Let's assume that Ve is equal to the orbital velocity of our Sun around the Galaxy = 220 Km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Therefore, after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first galaxy).
We can see it as a rocket over rocket over….rocket. 1370 times.
It will take it = Te * 1370 generations
Therefore, as far as we look, we see that galaxies are drifting at a faster velocity from us.
There is no limit for that velocity.
After m * 1370 generations, the relative velocity will be M times the speed of light.
As the Universe is infinite, at the far end there are galaxies that are drifting away from us at almost infinite speed.
However, please be aware that new born BHs are ejected away in all directions. Therefore, in any nearby aria we see that the galaxies are moving in all directions.
Therefore, there is no need to space expansion or dark energy to explain the ultra velocity of the far end galaxies.
We only need to understand, that it is achievable after long enough time.
There is a clear observation for the ejection process. We see that Triangulum (relatively small spiral galaxy – 40 Billion stars)  is directly drifting away from it mother Andromeda (A supper massive spiral galaxy with about one Million Billion stars)
As they are drifting away from each other, they set hydrogen "bridge" between them:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611193632.htm
"The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."

This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.
Unfortunately, as expected, you didn't take the effort to read my explanations.
You only focus in highlighting your "negative wisdom".
I have never got from you any positive reply as your main task is focusing on the Negative.
Your approach aim to knock down any person that wishes to get better understanding in science.
By doing so, you might set your ego in the sky and feel how "clever" you are.
Shame on you!
You have to apologize to any person in this forum that you have insulted.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 12/04/2020 05:12:24
I do believe that anyone in this forum that takes the effort to open new tread and presents his ideas in science represents his own Truth.

Either something is true or it isn't. The Big Bang theory, for example, can't be true for one person and false for another.

Unfortunately, as expected, you didn't take the effort to read my explanations.

He reads them, he just knows enough about science to say that they are wrong.

I have never got from you any positive reply as your main task is focusing on the Negative.

That is, at least in part, because your "theory" is filled with errors.

Your approach aim to knock down any person that wishes to get better understanding in science.

People who are looking to get a better understanding of science ask questions. And I don't mean the rhetorical questions of the kind you pose. You make declarations instead. Declarations based on poor logic. Bored Chemist is pointing that out.

How many actual scientists have you spoken to that agree with "Theory D" anyway?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:35:48
We can agree or disagree with any point of view.
Or we can do what you do and repeatedly make statements that have been shown to be false.
That's called lying.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:36:47
If someone considers that the other one is liar, than he is the real liar.
Can you show me the dictionary that uses that definition?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:45:10
"the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe."
So, it conflicts with a universe like the one you describe here
... a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:51:04
You didn't even try to read this tread as you were focusing only on the negative aspects..
I have bad news for you. That's how science works.
The ideas that get accepted are the ones that can not be shown to be false.
So the basis of science is trying to make things fail.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2020 10:55:32
That paradox doesn't contradict Theory D. I have already explained it to you.
 
Quote from: Dave Lev on 10/04/2020 14:39:49
The assumption that an infinite Universe could keep the light during the night is a poor fiction.
We actually get a direct light only from galaxies that are drifting away from us at a velocity which is less than a speed of light.
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
If we will draw a direct line to any direction up to the infinity,

I referred to that "line" in my rebuttal.
Well, if it was infinitely old then there would have been an infinite time for the light to get to us (not a mere 13Ga).
So, along the line you talked about, there would be a visible star.

And yet you are saying I didn't read it.
How could I refer to something I hadn't read?
Please take more care to avoid saying silly things like that.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Lance Canham on 12/04/2020 13:53:13
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:57:50"the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe."So, it conflicts with a universe like the one you describe hereQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42 ... a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.


In his theory there may be issue with an infinite Universe(size) and (age), Looking at gravity I found a way an infinite universe works That implies it went and goes through Paradigm changes, During this change Physics as you now takes hold.  So even in an infinite Universe of infinite size The physics still took hold when the text book says so its IS VERY possible to have an infinite universe of size and age and not break Olbers Paradox, JUST saying. Look up and ask if its infinite what will gravity do. Again after answering that look down because your answer looking up says it happened before.

If its infinite it can't expand but it can look like it does. How could this be. The universe is not A FINITE BALLOON BLOWING UP.  Its an infinite one pinched all over - Move it ahead. The pinches compress stretching the balloon between them till they can no longer do this then all the pinches start to pool into lager pinches and again and again. And it happened before.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 05:19:48
Dear Kryptid
In the article it is clearly stated that the 46BLY is based ONLY on comoving distance.
It isn't due to Proper distance that is connected to the expansion of the universe.
Please read it again:

In the following article it is stated that the red shift is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
The cosmic microwave background has a redshift of z = 1089, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang and a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years."

So, when we look at the CMB we do understand that they cross a distance of more than 46 BLY.
Please be aware that the real meaning of comoving distance is the real distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances
"Comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe, giving a distance that does not change in time due to the expansion of space (though this may change due to other, local factors, such as the motion of a galaxy within a cluster)"
So, Our scientists do not discuss on a proper distance due to the expansion:
"Proper distance roughly corresponds to where a distant object would be at a specific moment of cosmological time, which can change over time due to the expansion of the universe. "

They clearly claim that the Red Shift shows that the real distance (comoving distance) that the CMB radiation had crossed is more than 46 BLY.
In order to cross that distance, you need at least 46 Billion year.

So, if you agree with that explanation by wiki, than the 46 BLY is only based on real distance without any impact due to the expantion.
If you see any error in that article, than please let me know.
In any case, if you accept it, than it proves my statement that the BBT is just incorrect.
Somehow you have ignored other articles that have stated clearly that the BBT is wrong..
After deep investigation about the BBT theory and after reading thousands of scientific articles during more than 10 years I have concluded that there must be a fatal error in the BBT.
You and Halc have never accepted my point of view.
However you always gave me important answers and lead me to the correct solutions with deep Mutual respect.
None of you have never ever claimed that I lie.
You might not know it, but theory D is clearly based on the excellent support that you both gave me.

Either something is true or it isn't. The Big Bang theory, for example, can't be true for one person and false for another.
The BBT isn't a science law.
You might believe in this hypothetical theory or you might reject it.
If it was true, our scientists won't be so "Puzzled" after any unexpected discovery. In real theory – there is no room for "unexpected" observation. Any new observation must perfectly fit the theory. That’s how it works in Engineering. There are no "Puzzled" Engineer. Every theory in electronic engineering should be 100% correct or should be set in the garbage.
If you wish I can summarize some of the key point that knocks down the BBT.
This hypothetical theory is just incorrect.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/04/2020 17:12:02
Well, if it was infinitely old then there would have been an infinite time for the light to get to us (not a mere 13Ga).
So, along the line you talked about, there would be a visible star.
Sorry
This is totally incorrect.
Everything in our Universe is relative (you can ask Einstein about it...)
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
In order to understand what will happen with a light that is traveling today to our direction, let call it Light A.
So, as any other light in the Universe, Light A had started today its movement to our direction at the speed of light.
However, that speed of light is relevant to its point of source, which is galaxy A.
Hence, as galaxy A is drifting away from us at 10 Times the speed of light, while Light A is moving in our direction at the speed of light, than the real outcome is that Light A is drifting away from us at 9 times the speed of light.
Therefore, light A won't get to us never and ever.
This simple explanation proves that your assumption is incorrect.
In any case, I would never ever call it Lie. At the maximum I might say that your knowledge in science is very poor
However, based on your definition:
Or we can do what you do and repeatedly make statements that have been shown to be false.
That's called lying.
Based on your definition, your false statement shows that you are Lying.
So, why do you lie?.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2020 05:35:14
And so I see you still don't understand how universal expansion works...

In real theory – there is no room for "unexpected" observation. Any new observation must perfectly fit the theory.

And you don't understand how theories work either. Theories are not facts.

But there is something that a good theory does: it makes testable predictions. So if I understand Theory D correctly, the proposal is that galaxies grow larger over time because the black hole in the center is continually creating matter and energy, right? If this is true, then younger galaxies should be smaller than older galaxies. So you have created an opportunity to test your model. Due to the limited speed of light, we are looking further back in time the further out we look into the Universe. So the further away galaxies are, the smaller they should look. Do you think that is correct?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 06:20:07
And so I see you still don't understand how universal expansion works...
So, would you kindly explain what is the real meaning of "red shift that is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years"?

So if I understand Theory D correctly, the proposal is that galaxies grow larger over time because the black hole in the center is continually creating matter and energy, right?
Yes
That is correct

If this is true, then younger galaxies should be smaller than older galaxies.
That is also correct. We have an excellent example for that: Andromeda her baby spiral galaxy - Tr.
In the same token, all dwarf galaxies around the MW are direct products/babies of the Milky Way.
So, they are all sisters. All of them are drifting outwards. Each one might drift at different direction..
Over time, each one of them might be converted to a mighty spiral galaxy.
There is good chance that all the nearby clusters of galaxies are also a direct product of the Milky way.
As long as they are drifting away at a relatively low velocity, than they could be considered as her direct children or grandchildren.
The Milky way should be proud with all of them.

So the further away galaxies are, the smaller they should look.
That could also be correct, as long as the total age of the Universe was finite.
However, the age of our universe is infinite.
I would assume that only the age of the Milky Way should be much more than one trillion years. (From the time that our SMBH had been born as a tinny BH at the center of its super massive Mather galaxy.)
This time represents just one brief moment in the life of our whole Universe.
Actually, based on my calculation, you need about 1370 generations in order to set a speed of light between the first mother to the last generation galaxy (assuming that all are drifting in the same direction)
So, if we could know the time that it takes to a new born tinny BH to set its own galaxy and its own new born tinny BHs, we could estimate how long it could take only to set our observable aria from one tinny BH.
But again, even that long time is just one more moment in the total life of our Universe.
Take it to the infinity and you get our wonderful infinite Universe.
So simple and easy.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2020 07:19:35
So, would you kindly explain what is the real meaning of "red shift that is corresponding a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light-years"?

46 billion light-years is the distance today. The distance was much smaller in the past.

However, the age of our universe is infinite.

Fine, we can say for the sake of argument that the Universe is infinite in age. However, the age of any single galaxy should be limited, shouldn't it? And if that's true, galaxies should be smaller the younger they are.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 08:00:31
46 billion light-years is the distance today. The distance was much smaller in the past.
Well, If I understand correctly the BBT, there are two factors for setting the distance:
1. comoving distance - real distance
2. Proper distance - distance due to the expansion
In that article in wiki they claim the 46 is only the comoving distance, - real distance.
If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?
However, the age of any single galaxy should be limited, shouldn't it?
Thanks for your great question. Actually I think about it for quite long time. In one hand it is quite logical to assume that the age of any galaxy should be limited. However, on the other hand, why a galaxy as a milky way can't live almost forever?
In any case, as the SMBH increases its mass over time, it should carry more mass in the galaxy. Andromeda is quite bigger than the Milky Way. Therefore, it should be older.
Therefore, the real age is setting by the SMBH itself.
For any particle that it contribute to our Universe it eats one.
So, the oldest objects in our Universe are the biggest SMBHs
Somehow it seems that those ultra high SMBH do not carry a galaxy.
So, there is good chance that at some point of his life, our SMBH will eject all the mass around it and live as one of those mighty old SMBH as Magnetar or Pulsar.

 
galaxies should be smaller the younger they are.
That should be correct.
However, I would focus on the size of the SMBH. The bigger it is the older it is..
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 12:32:04
Sorry
This is totally incorrect.
Everything in our Universe is relative (you can ask Einstein about it...)
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
In order to understand what will happen with a light that is traveling today to our direction, let call it Light A.
So, as any other light in the Universe, Light A had started today its movement to our direction at the speed of light.
However, that speed of light is relevant to its point of source, which is galaxy A.
Hence, as galaxy A is drifting away from us at 10 Times the speed of light, while Light A is moving in our direction at the speed of light, than the real outcome is that Light A is drifting away from us at 9 times the speed of light.
Therefore, light A won't get to us never and ever.
This simple explanation proves that your assumption is incorrect.
In any case, I would never ever call it Lie. At the maximum I might say that your knowledge in science is very poor
However, based on your definition:

Interesting, but it just shows that you failed to grasp my other point.
If the universe is expanding, and it always has been, why is there anything still near us?
I should be able to see no stars, or a star in every possible direction.

"Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light."
Who put it there? It has been moving away from us  for an infinite time (according to you). Why is it still there?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 14:48:12
Interesting, but it just shows that you failed to grasp my other point.
If the universe is expanding, and it always has been, why is there anything still near us?
I should be able to see no stars, or a star in every possible direction.
Our Universe isn't expanding!!!
Only the matter/galaxies in our infinite Universe are expanding.
I have already copy the explanation for you.
Now I copy it again for you.
Please let me know if you have any difficulty to read that explanation.
Expansion

Based on theory D, there is no need to set any space Expansion. We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.
So how it really works:
Once upon a time a new Born BH had arrived to our Infinite Universe. It was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space.
Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field to create new particle pairs at the Photon Sphere.  .
One particle from those new created pair had been eaten by this first BH, while the opposite charged particle had been ejected outwards to the magnetic accelerator that we call now - accretion disc..
This BH will increase its mass and energy over time. It will also be converted to the first Massive BH Hosting a dwarf galaxy. Later on it will be converted to a SMBH hosting a mighty spiral galaxy as the Milky Way.
It will generate new atoms, molecular, Asteroids, Moons, Planets, Stars and even it own baby BHs.
So, this first BH will become the mother the first matter in the Universe.
As we all know - Mothers do not eat their children. Therefore, also this first BH has no intention or need to eat its Babies.
Over time all the new created matter, stars BH's…will be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
Our milky way acts as one of the biggest stars sprinkler in the Universe. Therefore we see more stars outside the galaxy than in the galaxy.
Ejection Velocity (Ve) – The average velocity of the ejected Stars/BHs from the Galaxy.
Each one of the second generation baby BHs will start to create new matter and over time it will be converted to MBH. At that time it might host a new dwarf galaxy while creating other new baby BHs.
Maturity Time (Tm) - The time that it takes to a new born BH till it starts to generate its own baby BHs. I assume that by that time it will host a dwarf galaxy and it will drift away from its Mother galaxy at Ve velocity.
Let's assume that all the new babies are drifting away at the same line direction.
So, the second generation of BHs are drifting away from the first BH at Ve. The next generation will drift away from the first BH at 2Ve After n generation, the relative velocity between should be nVe.
Based on my calculation:
Let's assume that Ve is equal to the orbital velocity of our Sun around the Galaxy = 220 Km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Therefore, after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first galaxy).
We can see it as a rocket over rocket over….rocket. 1370 times.
It will take it = Te * 1370 generations
Therefore, as far as we look, we see that galaxies are drifting at a faster velocity from us.
There is no limit for that velocity.
After m * 1370 generations, the relative velocity will be M times the speed of light.
As the Universe is infinite, at the far end there are galaxies that are drifting away from us at almost infinite speed.
However, please be aware that new born BHs are ejected away in all directions. Therefore, in any nearby aria we see that the galaxies are moving in all directions.
Therefore, there is no need to space expansion or dark energy to explain the ultra velocity of the far end galaxies.
We only need to understand, that it is achievable after long enough time.
There is a clear observation for the ejection process. We see that Triangulum (relatively small spiral galaxy – 40 Billion stars)  is directly drifting away from it mother Andromeda (A supper massive spiral galaxy with about one Million Billion stars)
As they are drifting away from each other, they set hydrogen "bridge" between them:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611193632.htm
"The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."

This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.
"Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light."
Who put it there? It has been moving away from us  for an infinite time (according to you). Why is it still there?
Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.
Let's assume that the Milky way is the first galaxy in the whole Universe.
So, after 1370 generation, the last generation will move away from us at the speed of light.
Hence, we can conclude that If Galaxy A is the 13,700 generation after the milky way, it should move 10 times the speed of light from us. However, it is important to highlight that we assume that all 13,700 galaxies generations should drift away from us exactly in the same direct line.
So galaxy A doesn't stay at a distance of 130 BLY away.
It is in a constant moving.
Therefore, if galaxy A is located today at a distance of 130,000,000,000 LY and in one year it is moving away by 10 LY, than next year it should be at a distance of 130,000,000,010 LY

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 15:11:44
Our Universe isn't expanding!!!
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/639349-multiple-exclamation-marks-he-went-on-shaking-his-head-are
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 15:21:27
Once upon a time a new Born BH had arrived to our Infinite Universe. It was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space.
Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field to create new particle pairs at the Photon Sphere.  .
OK, you said to let you know if I had problems reading that.
Well, yes, because it's nonsense.
"a new Born BH"
Born of what?
"arrived to our Infinite Universe."
From where?
"was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space."
How come?
"Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. "
Through what mechanism? Angular momentum doesn't create a magnetic field.
"Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field "
The field that wouldn't exist.
" to create new particle pairs"
Through what mechanism?
"at the Photon Sphere."
The what?


That's about 3 unanswered questions per line of your text.
Did you think it wouyld somehow be helpful?

Now, to get back to my point.
You say
Our Universe isn't expanding!!!
Only the matter/galaxies in our infinite Universe are expanding.

Well, what you said was

Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
And I asked how come it was only that far away if it has been traveling that fast for an infinite time.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 15:27:33
OK, you said to let you know if I had problems reading that.
Well, yes, because it's nonsense.
"a new Born BH"
Born of what?
"arrived to our Infinite Universe."
From where?
"was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space."
How come?
Well, I advise you to read the explanation about theory D.
After reading it, you should get the answers for all your questions.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 15:34:48
OK, you said to let you know if I had problems reading that.
Well, yes, because it's nonsense.
"a new Born BH"
Born of what?
"arrived to our Infinite Universe."
From where?
"was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space."
How come?
Well, I advise you to read the explanation about theory D.
After reading it, you should get the answers for all your questions.
I read it; it didn't help.
Because it keeps on being full of stuff like that which simply does not make sense.

Now, please answer my simple question.
Why is the galaxy so close after it has been leaving us so fast, for so long?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 13/04/2020 16:48:28
After reading it, you should get the answers for all your questions.
I didn't see any answers, just statements with no evidence or statements that are counter to evidence. 
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 16:49:54
Now, please answer my simple question.
Why is the galaxy so close after it has been leaving us so fast, for so long?

Let me explain:
Any New born BH can only drifts away from its Mather galaxy at almost a fixed velocity but at any direction.
For example, Triangulum is moving away from its Mother galaxy - Andromeda
In the same token, any nearby dwarf galaxy is also drifting away from the Milky way..
I have estimated that the drifting velocity is 220Km/sec.
Those dwarf galaxies can't increase there velocity relative to the Milky way and they also can't change their drifting drirection.
If it is 220 Km/s than it will stay almost the same forever (assuming that there are no external interruptions as gravity forces)
However, their BHs children should also drifts away from them at 220Km/s. By doing so, if they drifts away from the Milky way than their relative velocity with reference to the Milky way is 2 x 220Km/s = 440Km/s
However, if they move in the direction of the milky way, than their relative velocity with reference to the Milky way is:
220 Km/s - 220km/s = 0
Hence, if the daughter galaxy of one of the nearby dwarf galaxy will move in the direction of the Milky way, it actually should move at a fixed distance with reference to the Milky way (zero velocity).
Therefore, generations over generations should set new galaxies that are moving in all directions and at different velocities relatives to other galaxies.
However, those in the nearby aria should move in a relatively low velocity.
I hope that it is clear by now.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 17:22:42
You keep talking about things drifting away forever.
WHY ARE THEY STILL HERE?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 17:40:22
You keep talking about things drifting away forever.
WHY ARE THEY STILL HERE?
In order to answer your question let's look at the nearby galaxies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies
There are about 195 galaxies.
About 100 galaxies are directly considered as a Satellite of Andromeda or the Milky way.
So, those galaxies are clearly children of the Milky way or Andromeda that are still orbiting around their mother galaxy.
It is quite clear that all/most of the others are also children of the Milky Way or Andromeda but they have already disconnected from the gravity force of their mother galaxy. So, they do not orbit around any galaxy and couldn't be considered as a satellite.
There is also good chance that for some of those galaxies, Andromeda or the Milky way are actually their grandmothers.
If we could verify the velocity and direction of each galaxy in this list we could easily estimate which is the mother' galaxy.
Therefore, all the 195 galaxies are direct products of the Milky Way or Andromeda.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 17:42:11
Do you think those galaxies are infinitely old?
(which would be a breach of most of the observed laws of physics)?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 17:51:44
Do you think those galaxies are infinitely old?
(which would be a breach of most of the observed laws of physics)?
No, they are all still quite young and quite small. (As expected from any young child)
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 17:55:44
Well, if the  universe is infinitely old, and they are young, what caused them?
Or, if you prefer, what caused their (great) grandparents?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 19:28:04
Well, if the  universe is infinitely old, and they are young, what caused them?
Or, if you prefer, what caused their (great) grandparents?

We should consider galaxies as we consider people.
However, their life time is quite longer.
So, in our aria there are two main galaxies - Andromeda and Milky way.
They are both quite mature, and quite old. Let's assume that if the age of the milky way is 10 Trillion years then  Andromeda is 50 trillion year while most of the other 195 nearby galaxies might be their children and grandchildren.
However, even with that life time of 50 trillion year, it is just a brief moment in the Universe life.
So, if we could go back in time we might verify the mothers of Andromeda and Milky Way.
Actually, we clearly know the velocity and direction of the milky way.
If we could set a direct line which is in the opposite direction of its movement, we might be able to verify the exact location of the Milky Way' mother galaxy.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 19:46:03
You seem to have missed the point.
Given that galaxies dissipate huge amounts of power, how come they haven't burned out yet?
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2020 19:55:20
If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?

Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.

Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.

And now you've demonstrated that you don't understand special relativity.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 20:01:38
Given that galaxies dissipate huge amounts of power, how come they haven't burned out yet?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Did you see my answer to kryptid?
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 07:19:35
However, the age of any single galaxy should be limited, shouldn't it?
Thanks for your great question. Actually I think about it for quite long time. In one hand it is quite logical to assume that the age of any galaxy should be limited. However, on the other hand, why a galaxy as a milky way can't live almost forever?
In any case, as the SMBH increases its mass over time, it should carry more mass in the galaxy. Andromeda is quite bigger than the Milky Way. Therefore, it should be older.
Therefore, the real age is setting by the SMBH itself.
For any particle that it contribute to our Universe it eats one.
So, the oldest objects in our Universe are the biggest SMBHs
Somehow it seems that those ultra high SMBH do not carry a galaxy.
So, there is good chance that at some point of his life, our SMBH will eject all the mass around it and live as one of those mighty old SMBH as Magnetar or Pulsar.
I don't fully understand your following question
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 20:07:30
I don't fully understand your following question
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?

OK, answer the other one.
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/04/2020 22:09:55
Every star and galaxy has a lifespan. The fuel in all the stars will run out over time. You can't magically add energy to keep the whole system going. It's all because of the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to entropy.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 14/04/2020 00:09:03
You can't magically add energy to keep the whole system going. It's all because of the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to entropy.

Except that's exactly what he proposes. He thinks that black holes can literally create matter and energy. On top of all of that, he thinks that somehow does not violate conservation of mass-energy. My attempt to explain to him that the creation of mass-energy, by definition, violates conservation of mass-energy was completely lost on him. I absolutely could not make him understand that.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/04/2020 07:08:18
Quote
If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?

Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.

If they are two different things than would you kindly direct me to an article that shows how a comoving distance (real distance) of 46 BLY (without even one word about proper distance), could be set in only 13 BY.
If there is an article that claims that comoving distance is actually based on comoving distance + proper distance, than I also would like to see it.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:48:12
Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.

And now you've demonstrated that you don't understand special relativity.
Even special relatively should be limited by velocities and distances.
However, if you think differently, than please explain how special relativity can help us to see a light that is moving away from us at 10 times (or even unlimited times) the speed of light while it is located at 130BLY away from us (or at the infinity).

You can't magically add energy to keep the whole system going. It's all because of the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to entropy.

Except that's exactly what he proposes. He thinks that black holes can literally create matter and energy.

Thanks Kryptid
You fully understand my point of view.
So, at any given moment any BH, MBH, SMBH, Magnatar, Pulsar... should Generate new energy and new mass.
That is the key element for a "living" infinite Universe.


On top of all of that, he thinks that somehow does not violate conservation of mass-energy. My attempt to explain to him that the creation of mass-energy, by definition, violates conservation of mass-energy was completely lost on him. I absolutely could not make him understand that.

You claim that a BH can't generate any limited new energy/mass, while you believe that the BBT could generate the whole energy/mass for our entire Universe in just a single moment of bang.
Let start with a single BH. Later on if you wish, I will discuss about the atom creation process in the BBT.

BH - Particle Pair is created at the Photosphere around the BH. The energy in the new created pair mass is transformed from the spinning BH by the magnetic force. The acceleration of almost speed of light for this new born pair is given for free by the ultra gravity force of the black hole. Only one pair of particle might be created at any given moment.

So, how it really works?
I have already explained it as follow:

New mass creation:
The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does.
Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So, new pair of particles can be created in the photosphere around a BH or SMBH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton."
" if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
In order to produce a positron-electron pair, the energy in their mass of 1.022 MeV is transformed by the magnetic force from the spinning BH. However, at the moment of creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
The energy for that high orbital kinetic energy is given by the gravity force of the BH.
So, while the energy in the mass had been transformed from the energy of the BH by magnetic field, the orbital kinetic energy is given for free by the BH' gravity force.
Please remember that at the moment of the new pair creation at the photosphere, It must fully obey to Newton orbital law.
We can get better understanding by look at the following Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
How Lorentz force works on those new particles pair?
In order to get better understanding let's look at the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=135&v=RqSode4HZrE&feature=emb_title
The North/South Poles of the SMBH is up/down with reference to their orbital direction. Therefore, based on that video, one charged particle should be deflected to the left while the other one would be deflected right. Hence, one particle should be deflected inwards to the SMBH direction, while the other one would be deflected outwards to the direction of the accretion disc.
The deflection inwards would decrease its altitude or radius from the SMBH. Therefore, it will face stronger gravity force from the SMBH.
That radius change will force it to fall in as its current orbital velocity would be too low. As it is stated in the following video:
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth" (or to the SMBH in our case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
On the other hand, the other particles must be deflected outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, its speed would be too high with reference to its current radius. Even a small deflection should bring it under the influence of the inwards side of the accretion disc. At that aria it would have to obey to the magnetic forces/pressures that are generated by the accretion disc itself. We know that the average orbital velocity at the accretion disc is about 0.3c. So, the new arrival particle might bang with the other particles already orbiting at the inwards side of the accretion ring and reduces its velocity from almost the speed of light to about 0.3c. At that moment it would become a new member at the plasma.
With regards to temperature – A new created particle must come with Ultra high temp. Adding to that the ultra high pressures, forces, Electric current flow and fusion activity in the plasma would increase the temp to almost 10^9 c at the accretion disc.   
This separation deflection process is vital. Without it, any new created particle pair would be eliminated at the same moment of their creation as each particle carry a negative charged with reference to the other.
Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Please let me know if you still see any violation in the first law of thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 14/04/2020 07:12:46
Please let me know if you still see any violation in the first law of thermodynamics.

If new energy is created, then the first law has been violated.

There is no point in me continuing. I know from past experience that you cannot be reasoned with. I'm done.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2020 11:03:14
I don't fully understand your following question
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?

OK, answer the other one.
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/04/2020 22:17:18
If new energy is created, then the first law has been violated.
The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law as we actually discuss on energy transformation.
In order to understand that let's go to the law itself:
Let's focus on the First_law_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, as heat and as thermodynamic work, and relating them to a function of a body's state, called Internal energy."
It is also stated clearly:
"The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed"
Based on Theory D new energy is not created out of nothing.
On the contrary, due to the law of conservation of energy, energy can be transformed from one form to another.
I have deeply explained how that energy transformation works.
The key element in this process is the orbital kinetic energy that is given by the gravity force.

There is no point in me continuing. I know from past experience that you cannot be reasoned with. I'm done.
Please don't give up.
I have set this process base on your explanation.
If you think that there is a contradiction with the law of thermodynamics, than please let me know where is that contradiction?

However, if we discuss about a violation, than the BBT sets violation to several physics law:
as follow:

BBT violation

Based on the BBT, the process starts from "initial state of very high density and high temperature". So, this "initial state of very high density and high temperature" includes all the energy that is needed to create new mass in the entire Universe including dark energy and dark matter, inflation, expansion
So, somehow, at an instant moment the whole energy of the entire Universe had been given to set our entire universe by one single Big Bang.
So, the contradictions are as follow:
1. Energy source for the BBT:
   What is the source for "high density and high temperature"?
   What does it mean high density? density of what? density of matter or density of energy?
   How that kind of high density and temperature had been created?
   If you can't show the source of energy, than there is a severe violation of thermodynamics law.
   
2. Inflation & Expansion in space -
Is it feasible to set an inflation and expansion in space by any sort of bang?
What kind of physics law can accept the idea of expansion in space due to that bang?
Did we ever try to calculate the energy that is needed to set that kind of activity?

3. Particle creation: ""After its initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms."
Can you please show the physics law that can permit the creation of particles from pure energy as a bang?
It seems that our scientists know for sure that there is no physics law that can accept the idea of creating mass from a bang.
Therefore, they don't claim for that. They only say that there was a bang and than "the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles"
However, we know that the only way to create new particles is by magnetic transformation of energy to real particles/mass in magnetic acceleration. No other process in the whole universe can set even tinny particle without that magnetic transformation. Our scientists do not claim that a magnetic accelerator had been created after the bang. Therefore, how can the estimate that just by cooling the Universe particles could be created from the high energy?

4. Particle pair creation and Annihilation
Let's assume that somehow there was a creation of partials. However, particles should be created in a pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum.["
However, without any ability to separate between the pair at the moment of creation, than those new born particle pair should be eliminated instantly at the same moment of their creation by the following process:
Annihilation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Examples
In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons.[1"
The only force that can split between the particle pair is Lorenz force that is based on magnetic field. Without any source for magnetic field in the BBT activity, no particle could be survived due to annihilation process.

5. Mean Lifetime for Particle Decay
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/meanlif.html
"The decay of particles is commonly expressed in terms of half-life, decay constant or mean lifetime. The probability for decay can be expressed as a distribution function"
So, any new created particle has a "probability for decay". the time between the creation of particle in the BBT to the time of Atom creation is very critical. If you wait too long, you have lost all the new created particles.

6. Atom creation - The Atom creation took place about  380,000 years after the Big Bang. That might be too long for any particle to survive. However, let's assume that somehow some particles had left till this moment of time.
However, how can the BBT converts those survived particles to real Atoms? Please remember that due to the inflation and space expansion, the space itself is increasing at Ultra high velocity. so, the particles almost doesn't move. It is the space itself that is increasing dramatically. That cause a severe problem. How the particles can meet each other in order to set a new Atom? Without any possibility to set a contact between particles and without any magnetic field how any new atom could be created?

6. Dark matter and dark energy - Somehow it seems that our scientists have no clue about the dark matter and dark energy although they includes more than 90 % of the total energy in the Universe. There is no info how that "dark" had been created by the BBT.

Conclusions:
Sorry, the whole process of Atoms creation including Dark energy and dark matter by the BBT is just unrealistic.
However, Theory D offers a real activity to create new atoms and fully meets any physics law including the thermodynamics...
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 14/04/2020 22:49:53
Please don't give up.

There is absolutely no point in me continuing this because you constantly twist the definitions of scientific terms to suit your agenda. No attempt at explaining how science works has worked on you. The fact that you said something so completely and utterly ridiculous as this...

The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law

..proves it.

But if you don't believe me, why don't you go to the "AskScience" section on Reddit and ask them if the creation of new energy violates conservation of energy? Once you see their responses, you should realize that it isn't me who is misinterpreting what conservation of energy means.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/04/2020 05:53:45
There is absolutely no point in me continuing this because you constantly twist the definitions of scientific terms to suit your agenda.
Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.
I just present the two theories in front of our Eyes.
Theory D doesn't contradict any law or scientific terms by creating one particle pair in photosphere of a BH in a given moment. Our scientists see that activity in real action!
We have deeply discussed about the virtual pair scientific term around the BH/SMBH. You have told me clearly that in order to convert those virtual particles that orbits at the speed of light to real particles with real mass, an energy transformation which is equivalent to their mass should be taken by the magnetic field from the rotation of the spinning BH. You didn't claim that also their orbital velocity should be taken from the magnetic field.  .
The orbital velocity for those virtual/real particles is dictated by the BH ultra high gravity force.
Therefore, the added kinetic energy that comes for free by the BH gravity force is the base for the whole mass creation cycle in our Universe.
Please - what is wrong with this process?

However, while you speak in the name of scientific terms and thermodynamics laws, you have totally ignored all the severe violations of the BBT for those scientific terms and laws.
I have just introduces few violations. There are so many more.  I have also clearly introduced articles that claim that the BBT is wrong.
But if you don't believe me, why don't you go to the "AskScience" section on Reddit and ask them if the creation of new energy violates conservation of energy?
If I will ask them about the energy source that was needed for the BBT, would they know the answer?
Why the creation of new energy in the BBT process doesn't violate the conservation of energy?
Why our scientists insist to ignore the energy source for the BBT?
If they have no clue about the energy source of the BBT, how do you know that it can work?
Why do you constantly claim that it is not our job to know about it?
If it is not our job, than why do you insist that it is my job to verify the extra energy for the pair creation activity?
If you give yourself a waiver from the energy source that is needed for the entire universe in a single moment based on the BBT, why don't you give me also a waiver for just one single pair particle in a given moment as needed for theory D?

Quote
The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law
..proves it.
The particle creation isn't fantasy or twisting the definitions of scientific terms. Our scientists clearly observe that activity in real life in the BH Photosphere!!! There is no higher proving than direct observation. As we clearly see that creation activity, than it proves that theory D is based on real science.



Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2020 09:56:58
Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.
And yet you say that creating energy doesn't violate the principle that says that energy can't be created.


Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to address this.

I don't fully understand your following question
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?

OK, answer the other one.
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2020 09:53:33
Quote
Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.
And yet you say that creating energy doesn't violate the principle that says that energy can't be created.

There is no violation.
The explanation was just in front of your eyes.
However, as usual,  it seems as an impossible mission for you to read it all..
So, let me copy it for you:
Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.
I just present the two theories in front of our Eyes.
Theory D doesn't contradict any law or scientific terms by creating one particle pair in photosphere of a BH in a given moment. Our scientists see that activity in real action!
We have deeply discussed about the virtual pair scientific term around the BH/SMBH. You have told me clearly that in order to convert those virtual particles that orbits at the speed of light to real particles with real mass, an energy transformation which is equivalent to their mass should be taken by the magnetic field from the rotation of the spinning BH. You didn't claim that also their orbital velocity should be taken from the magnetic field.  .
The orbital velocity for those virtual/real particles is dictated by the BH ultra high gravity force.
Therefore, the added kinetic energy that comes for free by the BH gravity force is the base for the whole mass creation cycle in our Universe.
Please - what is wrong with this process?

I hope that this time you could read all of it.
If you did so, than you probably have got the answer.

However, I see that the question about the thermodynamics law represents "double standard"..
You wish to disqualify theory D by claiming that it doesn't offer a valid energy source for the creation of new particle at BH photosphere, while our scientists don't have a basic clue about the energy source that was needed for the BBT
Actually, I have proved that a bang can't generate even one tinny particle even if you call it a "Big Bang" and you get an Unlimited Dense and Heat for free, while I have offered real observation for the creation of the new particles at the BH photosphere..
Let me tell you story about that double standard:
You stay next to a train full with apples.
You take one and eat. Than a burglar takes the whole train and tells you that it is forbidden to take an apple which doesn't belong to you.
In the same token, our scientists have no basic idea about energy source that is needed for the BBT in order to generate the whole Universe in one Big bang. Therefore, by definition they can't fulfill that thermodynamics law.
Hence, it is a real double standard that in one hand you try to criticize the missing source of energy that is needed for the creation of participle pair in a BH photosphere (that we clearly see), while on the other hand your theory (BBT) totally disobey the same thermodynamics law that you offer.

.
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Do you mean: why stars can live so long time?
Well, stars can live much longer than your estimation.
Actually, our scientists have no basic clue about the real age of stars.
Let's use our sun as an example:
Our scientists claim that its age is about 6 BY.
This is a fatal error.
In order to estimate the real age of a star you need to understand where and how new born stars had been created.
All/most of the stars are created in a gas cloud near the SMBH. There is no way to create a star outside the center of the galaxy. Without the impact of the Ultra high nearby gravity force and electromagnetism that a SMBH can offer, there is no way to form any star.
So, Our Sun had been created at one of those gas clouds orbiting the SMBH.
All the matter/ molecular for those gas clouds had been delivered from the Molecular jet stream by the matter that falls back to the galactic disc 
So, if we could verify the time that it takes the Sun to drift all the way from the center to our location, than we could get a perfect understanding for the real age of our Sun.
I estimate that the min age of our whole solar system should be 500 BY (Yes, including all the planets and moons).
Therefore, the stars could live much more than your current estimation.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2020 10:55:05
However, as usual,  it seems as an impossible mission for you to read it all..
i read it.
It didn't help.
I accept your point that, at first glance the BB looks like a violation of the conservation laws.
It's not.
If you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something,  then say so.


Actually, our scientists have no basic clue about the real age of stars.
We have experimental data about fusion rates.
We have quite good data about the age of the Earth from radioactive dating, but there's no need for that level of sophistication. Your figures are just not plausible. If the Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium.
Considering the Solar system, if the Sun isn't " a bit older, but not hugely older than the Earth" then you have to explain why the Sun waited for billions of years (or more) before starting the process of forming the Earth.


Do you mean: why stars can live so long time?
Did you not see what I posted?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

Even if you say that a star lasts a quintillion years (at which point everyone will laugh at you) I will point out that the Universe has- in your view, been round infinitely longer than that, so the stars (and their successors) should have died out long ago.

We should  look up and see only the heat death of the universe.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2020 16:26:22
I accept your point that, at first glance the BB looks like a violation of the conservation laws.
It's not.
If you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something, then say so.
Do you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?
Again - what is the source of energy for the BBT?
Try something more logical please.
So far I didn't get any answer for the following points:

1. Energy source for the BBT:
   What is the source for "high density and high temperature"?
   What does it mean high density? density of what? density of matter or density of energy?
   How that kind of high density and temperature had been created?
   If you can't show the source of energy, than there is a severe violation of thermodynamics law.
   
2. Inflation & Expansion in space -
Is it feasible to set an inflation and expansion in space by any sort of bang?
What kind of physics law can accept the idea of expansion in space due to that bang?
Did we ever try to calculate the energy that is needed to set that kind of activity?

3. Particle creation: ""After its initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms."
Can you please show the physics law that can permit the creation of particles from pure energy as a bang?
It seems that our scientists know for sure that there is no physics law that can accept the idea of creating mass from a bang.
Therefore, they don't claim for that. They only say that there was a bang and than "the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles"
However, we know that the only way to create new particles is by magnetic transformation of energy to real particles/mass in magnetic acceleration. No other process in the whole universe can set even tinny particle without that magnetic transformation. Our scientists do not claim that a magnetic accelerator had been created after the bang. Therefore, how can the estimate that just by cooling the Universe particles could be created from the high energy?

4. Particle pair creation and Annihilation
Let's assume that somehow there was a creation of partials. However, particles should be created in a pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum.["
However, without any ability to separate between the pair at the moment of creation, than those new born particle pair should be eliminated instantly at the same moment of their creation by the following process:
Annihilation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Examples
In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons.[1"
The only force that can split between the particle pair is Lorenz force that is based on magnetic field. Without any source for magnetic field in the BBT activity, no particle could be survived due to annihilation process.

5. Mean Lifetime for Particle Decay
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/meanlif.html
"The decay of particles is commonly expressed in terms of half-life, decay constant or mean lifetime. The probability for decay can be expressed as a distribution function"
So, any new created particle has a "probability for decay". the time between the creation of particle in the BBT to the time of Atom creation is very critical. If you wait too long, you have lost all the new created particles.

6. Atom creation - The Atom creation took place about  380,000 years after the Big Bang. That might be too long for any particle to survive. However, let's assume that somehow some particles had left till this moment of time.
However, how can the BBT converts those survived particles to real Atoms? Please remember that due to the inflation and space expansion, the space itself is increasing at Ultra high velocity. so, the particles almost doesn't move. It is the space itself that is increasing dramatically. That cause a severe problem. How the particles can meet each other in order to set a new Atom? Without any possibility to set a contact between particles and without any magnetic field how any new atom could be created?

7. Dark matter and dark energy - Somehow it seems that our scientists have no clue about the dark matter and dark energy although they includes more than 90 % of the total energy in the Universe. There is no info how that "dark" had been created by the BBT.
Can you please try to answer?

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 08:00:31
If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?
Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.
Can you please explain how can you fit real distance of 46BLY in only 13BY.
How the CMB radiation that had emitted 13 BY ago could get to us after crossing real distance of 46BLY?

We have experimental data about fusion rates.
We have quite good data about the age of the Earth from radioactive dating, but there's no need for that level of sophistication. Your figures are just not plausible. If the Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium.
Your data is incorrect as your theory is incorrect.
All the planets and Moons have been created as a hot gas balls at the same day as the sun and with the same matter.
Our current earth has less than 2% from its day of birth.
So, it was significantly much bigger, very hot and full with Hydrogen and helium.
It probably took it very long time to cool down and eject most of the light gas.
Why do you claim that: "If Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium"?

.
 
Even if you say that a star lasts a quintillion years (at which point everyone will laugh at you) I will point out that the Universe has- in your view, been round infinitely longer than that, so the stars (and their successors) should have died out long ago.
You can all laugh as you wish, however you all have no clue how our universe really works.
There is no expire date for a star.
There is no successor for a star.
Once it die it dies forever. Its mass could be lost in space or be used to create new BH. There is no way to form new star from the mass of a star that have lost its life in a supernova
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2020 16:33:15
Your data is incorrect as your theory is incorrect.
My data is the half life of uranium, which I can measure, and the fact that I can find uranium about the place which is obviously true.
It's not a "theory" as you put it, it's an observation.
Do you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?
Yes; it does.
Why do you claim that: "If Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium"?
Because I can do arithmetic.
Once it die it dies forever. Its mass could be lost in space
And yet, after what you claim is an infinite time, there are still some here.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/04/2020 14:46:17
My data is the half life of uranium, which I can measure, and the fact that I can find uranium about the place which is obviously true.
It's not a "theory" as you put it, it's an observation.
Can you please direct me to the article that could confirm the age of the Universe by uranium?
Please remember that based on theory D each planet and moon had been created as hot gas ball.
So, how the Uranium could set the age of a hot gas ball?

Quote
Do you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?
Yes; it does.
So, you claim that the following answer can generate the total energy for the BBT:
if you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something,  then say so.
However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?

Why did you ignore my following question:
Can you please explain how can you fit real distance of 46BLY in only 13BY.
How the CMB radiation that had emitted 13 BY ago could get to us after crossing real distance of 46BLY?

So, let's see if I understand it correct.
The radiation which had been emitted at the time of the Atom formation had been ejected to the open space.
Due to the expansion it actually had crossed 46BLY in only 13 BY.
So how could it be?
The real distance is only 13BY, therefore, due to the expansion the radiation had to cross
46-13=31BLY
So, how can we force the radiation to cross 31BLY directly due to the expansion?
31/13 = 2.4
It actually represents a velocity which is 2.4 times the speed of light.
I wonder how only the expansion can contribute a velocity which is relevant to 2.4 times the speed of light?
This is a big question mark by itself.

In any case, this Expansion increases the distance between any nearby Atoms.
However, in order to form Stars we need to brig atoms together.
So, the expansion contradicts the process of forming new stars.
Therefore, the BBT has a built in contradiction that prevents the formation of new stars.
We need the expansion in space to explain the extra 31 BY of comoving distance in the CMB. Which is equivalent to extra velocity of 2.4 the speed of light.
While if there is an expansion in space, than we actually increases the distance between any nearby atoms and prevent the requested process that is needed to form star or even Asteroid.
Therefore, this is one more input why the BBT is absolutely none relevant
It is amazing that there are so negative points in the BBT that each one of them by itself should knock down that theory
How could it be that our scientists with deep knowledge in science totally ignore all negative points and real observations that the BBT is wrong?

I do recall a discussion with Kryptid. He told me that the BBT isn't a perfect theory, but it is currently the best that is available.
However, Now I offer a perfect theory for our Universe.
It covers any aspect of the Universe activity and fully meets any observation.
Based on this theory we can understand where we had been and where we should be in the Future.
It meets the Universe by 100%. However, you still refuse even to consider it or any other theory for our Universe.

What is there in the BBT that all of you try to protect as it was some sort of holly crown?
Are you sure that the BBT is all about science?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2020 15:30:01
However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?
You seem to have finally seen the problem in your idea.

In that same way that the tiny bangs are impossible, so is the perpetual  light from stars like the Sun.

So, you now see why I'm asking the question

Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 19:46:03
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/04/2020 06:20:28
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:46:17
However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?
You seem to have finally seen the problem in your idea.
No. There is no problem with the energy transformation in theory D.
You are more than welcome to read it, if you didn't read it yet.

However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.
If you add to that all the other problems with the BBT than this theory should be set by now in the garbage of the history

Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

Well, If we discuss about stars:
Our scientists claim that there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies.
Try to calculate how many stars there are just in those 195 nearby galaxies (including our galaxy).
Only in Andromeda there are over than one trillion stars.
So, let's assume that there are x Trillion stars. Therefore, we can say that outside the galaxies (Just in that nearby area) there are at least x Trillion stars + 1 one more.
How the BBT could explain that Observation?
I assume that when our scientists have discovered that phenomenon they were very "Puzzled" as usual and as expected from anyone who is using totally wrong theory.
On the other hand, Theory D gives perfect explanation for that observation.
In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.
Some of them might collide with each other in the open space, some might blow up in a supernova and some might be converted into BH.
However, why are you so sure that all of them must have a limited file cycle?

If we discuss about BH or especially SMBH, than there is good chance that at some point of time the SMBH will be so massive that it could be converted to Magnatar or Pulsar.
By that time it would probably kick out all the stars that it was hosting in its galaxy
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2020 12:32:03
No. There is no problem with the energy transformation in theory D.
Yes there is.

You are more than welcome to read it, if you didn't read it yet.
I started, but it's based on something that's not true; so I stopped.

However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.
No, I didin't.

If you add to that all the other problems with the BBT than this theory should be set by now in the garbage of the history
What problems?
You haven't pointed any out.
You have just made it clear that you don't understand it.

Try to calculate how many stars there are just in those 195 nearby galaxies (including our galaxy).
Only in Andromeda there are over than one trillion stars.
So, let's assume that there are x Trillion stars. Therefore, we can say that outside the galaxies (Just in that nearby area) there are at least x Trillion stars + 1 one more.
That's not relevant to my point, and you know it. It is sufficient that there is one star left- the Sun, for example- to show that there's a problem with your idea.
Stop wasting time and answer the question.
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?

In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.
I don't. I'm just saying that their life is finite, and that any finite number is less than infinity so any star should have burned out if the universe is infinitely old.
Some of them might collide with each other in the open space, some might blow up in a supernova and some might be converted into BH.
The point is that tehSun hasn't done any of those things, it is still here.
Why hasn't it burned out yet?

However, why are you so sure that all of them must have a limited file cycle?
The conservation laws which are a consequence of the observed symmetries of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem


If we discuss about BH or especially SMBH, than there is good chance that at some point of time the SMBH will be so massive that it could be converted to Magnatar or Pulsar.
By that time it would probably kick out all the stars that it was hosting in its galaxy

That may be hypothetically possible (though I doubt it), but it doesn't help.
You can put forward any process and I will ask the same question.
Why hasn't it finished yet, if the universe is infinitely old?

Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/04/2020 05:02:00
However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.
No, I didin't.
Ok
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT, than would you kindly direct me to that article?
In wiki it is stated that they don't have any idea about the source of energy for the BBT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available."
However they add that: "In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."
So, they don't claim that they know what is the source of energy, they just claim the status of that energy at the "The earliest phases"
Therefore, at Time Zero of the BBT the universe was: "filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
However, now comes the Biggest contradiction to that assumption:
At Wiki it is stated:
"The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, and such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
However, in order to bypass that "physical impossibility" they came with a brilliant idea that: "physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang."
So the contradiction is as follow:
If there was no time before the BBT than our scientists can't claim that before the BBT Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures.
They have to clock the time from the moment that something came to our totally empty Universe.
So if there was something as: "very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures", than clearly the time was ticking from the first moment of accumulation that energy in the Universe.
Therefore, the time was already ticking before the zero time of the BBT..
However, as we already know the time kills the BBT as : "such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
Therefore, Just on this issue we should set the BBT deep in the garbage.
So, I have used an article to prove my statement that the BBT is totally none relevant.
If you still think that there is a way to bypass this obstacle, than please introduce an article that confirms the source of that infinite energy before the BBT and how it could be created and accumulated in the universe without ticking the time.
Please use articles to backup your understanding as I did!!!

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2020 08:43:56
Ok
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT
It doesn't need one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

than would you kindly direct me to that article?
It's not that important, but you should learn the difference between "then" and "than"

Please use articles to backup your understanding as I did!!!
You don't have the understanding to back up.

Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/04/2020 14:07:52
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:02:00
Ok
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT
It doesn't need one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Thanks for this Article.
It is very interesting.
However, did you try to read it first?
In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.
"the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist."

However, based on the BBT, there was no matter before the Big Bang.
Therefore, without matter, there is no gravity and therefore, the Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT in order to set the first High dense and high temp stage just before the bang itself.
So, this idea can't help the BBT.
Please try to offer better idea.

I would like to remind you that you have also totally ignored the contradiction between zero time and infinite energy that was requested to the BBT:

At Wiki it is stated:
"The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, and such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
However, in order to bypass that "physical impossibility" they came with a brilliant idea that: "physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang."
So the contradiction is as follow:
If there was no time before the BBT the
n our scientists can't claim that before the BBT Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures.
They have to clock the time from the moment that something came to our totally empty Universe.
So if there was something as: "very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures", thקn clearly the time was ticking from the first moment of accumulation that energy in the Universe.
Therefore, the time was already ticking before the zero time of the BBT..
However, as we already know the time kills the BBT as : "such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
So, can you please explain that contradiction?

There is one more key issue.
Please read the following message:
"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."
Let's assume that somehow we have got an infinite energy for free.
Just to our discussion, lets assume that Divine-power/god had delivered all of that infinite energy.
However, it is stated that "the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
So, the Universe must be INFINITE!
If the universe was finite, then how can we claim for any sort of "homogeneously and isotropically" at that finite Universe?

Even if we think about a singularity for the Big bang then still it is a distortion in the Universe that contradicts the "homogeneously and isotropically"
It is quite clear that without that key idea for "homogeneously and isotropically"  the BBT is actually none relevant.
So, if there was a big bang, it could only work at infinite Universe that "was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
If you have better idea, then please share it with us.
I actually do appreciate your effort to support that none relevant theory that is called BBT even if you can't offer any article to support your ideas.
So, please don't give up. At least you do your best to hold the theory flag above the water.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2020 14:27:53
I would like to remind you that you have also totally ignored the contradiction between zero time and infinite energy that was requested to the BBT:
I have ignored many of the things you made up.

In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.
And there is matter in the universe.
Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT i
It can now.
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/04/2020 15:52:15
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52
Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT
It can now
In this article our scientists don't even try to claim that this idea could deliver any sort of energy to the BBT.
But as usual, you assume that your knowledge is much superior then those scientists.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52
In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.
And there is matter in the universe.
Based on the BBT, there were no matter before the bang.
Just to remind you that even the time didn't start its ticking before the bang and the first Atom had been created only 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
Kryptid have already told me that our scientists don't really know what is the BBT' energy source.
So, it is clear that our scientists are not using this idea of zero energy as a source of energy for the BBT.
However, somehow you hope that you know much better than all of them, while you can't offer any article that could support your misunderstanding in this issue.

Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
The Sun and any other star could live long life. So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?
I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.
I also do not dare to claim that the age of our galaxy/SMBH is infinite.
However, I claim that they are old. Much, much older than those 13.8 BY.
This time represents less than a brief moment in our universe with its infinite age.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2020 18:13:18
In this article our scientists don't even try to claim that this idea could deliver any sort of energy to the BBT.
Do you really not get it?

The Big Bang does not need an energy source.
But as usual, you assume that your knowledge is much superior then those scientists.
OK, two things.
I am a scientist.
More importantly, I'm not assuming I understand the BBT better than them.
I am saying I understand it better than you.

You are suffering from the misunderstanding that it needs energy.
The thing about the zero energy universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
 is that it doesn't take any energy to create it..
There's a hint in the name.


OK, now since the BB doesn't need an energy source, this

If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT, than would you kindly direct me to that article?
Makes no sense.

So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.
I'm fairly sure I did.
It's just that you ignore facts.
The conservation laws which are a consequence of the observed symmetries of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
There we go.
I did provide a source.

I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.
I didn't say you had.
I asked why it hasn't burned out yet.
That's not the same thing.

The point is that, after an infinite time, stars shouldn't be "starting",
So, any finite age for the Sun makes no sense.

After an infinite time, anything and everything that can happen will have happened.
And that includes the death of the Sun.
Yet it still shines

So...




Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 03:20:14
The Big Bang does not need an energy source.
Sorry
This assumption sets a severe contradiction with the first stage of the BBT as stated at wiki:
" the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
Therefore, our scientists didn't start the BBT while the energy is zero.
You have stated clearly that you don't understand the BBT better than them,
I am a scientist.
More importantly, I'm not assuming I understand the BBT better than them.

In this case, how could you claim that "the Big Bang does not need an energy source" while they clearly have stated that an energy is needed for the first stage of the BBT?

If you still believe that those scientists have no clue in science, than would you kindly offer an article that confirms your severe mistake for no need an energy source?
If not, than it shows that your following statement is also incorrect:
I am saying I understand it better than you.
It's time for you to read some relevant articles and improve your knowledge in science.
You are suffering from the misunderstanding that it needs energy.
The thing about the zero energy universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
 is that it doesn't take any energy to create it..
Sorry again
You suffer again by severe misunderstanding.
In this article they clearly claim that a matter is needed to create the zero energy.
Before the Big Bang there was no matter.
Therefore, there is no way to apply that idea for the first stage of the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
"in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist"
I have already explained it to you.
Unfortunately, (and as Usual) you don't take the effort to read and understand.
Based on the BBT, there were no matter before the bang.
Just to remind you that even the time didn't start its ticking before the bang and the first Atom had been created only 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
Kryptid have already told me that our scientists don't really know what is the BBT' energy source.
So, it is clear that our scientists are not using this idea of zero energy as a source of energy for the BBT.
However, somehow you hope that you know much better than all of them, while you can't offer any article that could support your misunderstanding in this issue.

However, this zero energy idea confirms the basic idea in theory D for the energy that is contributed to the new created particle pair by gravity:
"its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity."
So, the gravity is a key element for new energy in our Universe.
However, you first need mater (as BH) to get gravity and use the benefit of this theory  --- and that exactly the base of theory D.
Thanks again for this article.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:52:15
I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.
I didn't say you had.
I asked why it hasn't burned out yet.
That's not the same thing.

The point is that, after an infinite time, stars shouldn't be "starting",
So, any finite age for the Sun makes no sense.

After an infinite time, anything and everything that can happen will have happened.
And that includes the death of the Sun.
Yet it still shines
So...
I have already answered this question:
The Sun and any other star could live long life. So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.
If you think that star has a limited time frame of only few Billion years, than please show your data in a clear article.
If not, please don't ask about it any more!
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 09:09:41
Therefore, there is no way to apply that idea for the first stage of the BBT.
It didn't happen in stages.
Either you are trolling, or you don't understand the article.
Which is it?
"in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist"
And we have them. They both came into being at the same time- nearly 14 Bn years back.

Because they happened at the same time, there is no need to worry about how one happened without the other.

And that's the point you seem to deliberately ignore.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 09:15:03
If you think that star has a limited time frame of only few Billion years, than please show your data in a clear article.
If not, please don't ask about it any more!
And there's the other point you miss.
I could find you articles about stellar evolution but that's not the point.
Even if you say that a star lasts a quintillion years (at which point everyone will laugh at you) I will point out that the Universe has- in your view, been round infinitely longer than that, so the stars (and their successors) should have died out long ago.

We should  look up and see only the heat death of the universe.


If the life of a star is not infinite, then they should all have died out but they have not.
So,

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 14:27:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 10:43:49
If the life of a star is not infinite, then they should all have died out but they have not.
So,
You have totally got lost.
In our infinite age Universe there are many young stars and galaxies.
Based on theory D all the stars in our Milky Way galaxy for example are quite young.
Just to understand that quite young could be 100 BY or 500BY.
As you move closer to the SMBH, the Stars are younger.
S2 for example is quite young star.
Its age could be just several million years.
This star also carries with him Planets and moons.
If we had the technology for that, we could see that all of those planets and moons are actually hot gas balls.
Some of them might be big as our big gas planets and some might be quite small.
S2 is not there by itself.
It must have at least one twin. Its twin could be at the same size as S2. Unfortunately,  we don't see its light. So, it could be a dark star or even a small BH.
S2 orbits around their common center of mass.
Also our Sun should have a twin brother.
We also can't see it. But it is surly there.
In any case, all the stars are drifting outwards over time.
So, sooner or later any new born star should be ejected from the galaxy.
Our galaxy acts as one of the Biggest Star sprinkler in the Universe.
Most of the stars outside the galaxy might be quite old.
However, some of the stars could be ejected from the galaxy while they are still young.
So, I can't tell you the maximal life cycle for a star. I can only assume that it could be more than one trillion years - assuming that it didn't collide with any other object.
By the way, as long as a star is located in the galaxy, it is safe.
The chance to collide with other star in the galaxy might be less than winning the lottery.
However, as the star is ejected outwards from the galaxy its life could be end by a sever collision with other nearby star.
Therefore, as long as our sun holds itself in the galaxy - we all are safe.
One day the sun must be ejected out of the galaxy. At that time the whole solar system could end its life by unexpected collision.
Let's hope that the Local gravity force at our spiral arm could hold long enough our sun in the galaxy.
If we could built a space ship that can take us to other solar system closer to the center of the galaxy, we could extend the mankind life for longer time..
However, we can't just go too close to the center as the rocky planets didn't evolve yet from the hot gas balls


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 10:57:49
You have totally got lost.
No.
You are the one who is lost.

As I pointed out, regardless of structure, of black holes, of lies about the ages of stars; in an infinitely old universe, everything has already happened.


Everything already finished, because, no matter how long it took, it has had an infinite amount of time; so it has finished it.

Do you not understand that?

And, since everything has happened in an infinitely old universe, among the things that must have happened is that any stars burned out.

All the stars already burned out in any infinitely old universe.
Do you understand that?

And since we have stars, the universe can not be infinitely old.

Yet, you claim it is.


So,
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:13:18

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 14:27:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 11:02:49
Ok
This assumption is correct as long as you hold the unrealistic idea of the BBT.
However, in theory D it is totally different.
At any given moment new mass is created around any BH/SMBH in the Universe.
Therefore the Universe could live forever and ever.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 11:53:00
However, in theory D it is totally different.
Yes, because "theory" D is based on something which we know is not true.

If the universe was infinitely old, everything would have died by now.
It hasn't so we know the universe  has a finite age.
At any given moment new mass is created around any BH/SMBH in the Universe.
So, the "tiny bangs" I asked about earlier.
Why didn't you just say "yes" back then?

If you had, I could  have already pointed out that you seem to have reinvented this failed isea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests

And you could have avoided wasting  any further time.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 14:12:50
If you had, I could  have already pointed out that you seem to have reinvented this failed isea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests
Based on your limited point of view there are only two options
BBT or steady state. Nothing could be in between.
You might consider that as the steady state couldn't give an answer for the observations, than the only available Theory is the BBT.
Therefore, you have no willing to open your mind and verify different approach.
It is clear that you and almost any person that consider himself as a scientist are totally locked in the BBT box.
You all totally ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT.
It seems that if you claim that you are scientist than by definition your main mission is to protect the BBT from any sort of attack.
Therefore, you have no interest to read theory D or any other Theory.
It seems that just the activity of Reading other theory would be considered as a sin or a crime.
Why is it?
Actually, you don't need to be scientist in order to verify that the BBT is clearly incorrect.
So, how could it be that our scientists that speak in the name of science do whatever it takes to protect so strongly the BBT?
I'm positively sure that you all know better than me why the BBT is none relevant from pure science prospective
Therefore, It is quite clear to me by now that the BBT is much more than a pure science.
If it was just science than long time ago our scientists would probably set the BBT in the garbage of the history.
So, could it be that there is also some sort of belief in the BBT?

By highlighting the negative points against the BBT, I do feel as I try to convince someone who believes in god that there is no god in our Universe.
I assume that most of the mankind in the world believes in the same god.
They could be Christians Jews or Muslims.
Hence, I would never ever dare to tell anyone of them that his belief is incorrect
Therefore, I wonder why do you all wish to believe so strongly ONLY in the BBT and ignore all the contradictions.
What is there in the BBT that could set such strong belief?
As you all totally ignore all the observations that contradict the BBT, could it be that this theory is more than just science for you?
Why is it so important for our scientists to protect the BBT?
Is there any sort of faith or belief that our scientists share in order to protect the BBT?
Did I miss something?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 15:21:03
Why is it so important for our scientists to protect the BBT?
Is there any sort of faith or belief that our scientists share in order to protect the BBT?
No one is protecting the BBT, it just happens to be the best theory that explains observations.  If someone comes up with a theory that explains it better they would win the Nobel Prize and the scientific community would say that's peachy keen!  Theory D[umb] is not going to do it, sadly
Did I miss something?
As pointed out by Bored chemist you have missed quite a lot.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 16:36:27
BBT or steady state. Nothing could be in between.
Either it banged or it didn't.
Are you proposing a Ba, or a ng! ?
Did I miss something?
Yes, the impossibility of an infinitely old universe, and thus the impossibility of your so-called "theory".
You all totally ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT.
Show me one.


It only takes one.
Go on...

Give us a single observation which is inconsistent with the BBT.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 16:38:47
If someone comes up with a theory that explains it better they would win the Nobel Prize
Thanks
Theory D is the Ultimate theory for our Universe.
It gives perfect explanation to all observations.
It also knocks down the BBT and sets it in the garbage of the history.
No more "Puzzled" scientists
So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 16:54:29
Theory D is the Ultimate theory for our Universe.
It's not a theory.
It's plainly wrong.

So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?
Hard to say. First of all you have to come up with a good idea.
Are you planning to do that?
The other thing you need to be able to do is support that idea.
So, for example, if someone asks "What can you show  us which is inconsistent with the BBT?" you will need to learn not to ignore them.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 17:06:07
So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?
I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 17:13:10
So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?
I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?
My guess is this, or something like it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 17:24:44
It's not a theory.
It's plainly wrong.
How can you claim for that while you didn't even try to read it and understand how it really works?
Could it be that you have disqualify theory D just because your main mission is to protect the BBT?
Yes, the impossibility of an infinitely old universe, and thus the impossibility of your so-called "theory".
It is forbidden to qualify or disqualify one theory with other theory.
As I have stated, based on the BBT, it is clearly impossible to have infinite old Universe.
However, Theory D isn't BBT.
Based on theory D, new matter is created constantly in the photosphere around BH/SMBH
Therefore, there is no limit for the size or age of the Universe
If you still think differently, then would you please show why an infinite Universe which generates constantly new matter can't live forever?

Show me one.
It only takes one.
Go on...
Give us a single observation which is inconsistent with the BBT.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
Is it good enough?
I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?
Thanks for your deep concern about me.
I'm fully Ok.
You don't know me. Let me just tell you that I have master in engineering and communications
I was involved in the development of edge technologies.
After learning science and physical laws, it was very clear to me that there is a fatal error with the BBT.
I have developed theory D with help from this forum.
I highly advice you to read the theory and get your own impression from it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2020 17:35:41
How can you claim for that while you didn't even try to read it and understand how it really works?
Because it assumes something which we know to be untrue.

As I have stated, based on the BBT, it is clearly impossible to have infinite old Universe.
Also, as I have pointed out, Not based on the BBT it is impossible to have an infinitely old Universe.

The fact that the universe is not infinitely old was pointed out by Olber a long time before the BBT was introduced.

So, I'm not saying your idea is wrong because it conflicts with  the BBT.
I am saying it is wrong because it goes dark at night.


If you still think differently, then would you please show why an infinite Universe which generates constantly new matter can't live forever?
Again?
Why?
Were you not paying attention last time?
Oh well- if you must
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests
And the references there, particularly this one
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm


After deep learning science and physical laws, it was very clear to me that there is a fatal error with the BBT.
Then for F***'s sake tell us what it is!.

Who knows- you might even  get a Nobel prize out of it.
I have master in engineering and communications
Right for the wrong reason. You have many masters.
You may also have a master's in engineering and communications.
It's ironic given how  poor your communications here are.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 18:34:38
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
Is it good enough?
No it isn't.  That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers.  The actual paper and the researchers do not say that.  For a fellow that has a masters in engineering, your lack of rigor is startling.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 19:01:55
Can you please direct me to the article that could confirm the age of the Universe by uranium?
No that would be impossible since there was no uranium formed from the big bang.  If you had any knowledge about the actual BBT you would not ask such a stupid question.
Elements heavier than iron are formed from super novae.
Quote
Please remember that based on theory D each planet and moon had been created as hot gas ball.
So, how the Uranium could set the age of a hot gas ball?
Another reason that we can conclude that your theory is a just idle conjecture with no supporting evidence.

The 2 main isotopes of uranium are U-238 and U-235.  U-235 is used in reactors.  There are places on earth where there have been natural nuclear reactors.  The concentration of U-235, in conjunction with ground water produced sustained chain reactions that resulted in low power production of about 100 kw.  These natural reactors existed more than 2 billion years ago and it is no longer possible for these natural reactors to exist.  The U-235 necessary for the natural chain reaction has decayed to such low levels that it is not possible for sustained reactions to occur now.  This of course points to the relative young age of the earth, young relative to your infinite age balderdash.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 20/04/2020 19:11:43
In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.
There is a finite amount of hydrogen in a star, therefore there is a finite amount of fusion that will occur, therefore when the finite amount of fuel is consumed the star will die.  How do you not know this if you are trying to make theories in astrophysics?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 20/04/2020 19:49:29
No it isn't.  That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers. 

Indeed so. Express is not a good website to get news from. It is filled with misleading, click-bait articles.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2020 23:59:20
The fact that the universe is not infinitely old was pointed out by Olber a long time before the BBT was introduced.

So, I'm not saying your idea is wrong because it conflicts with  the BBT.
I am saying it is wrong because it goes dark at night.
I have already answered this question.
Why is it so difficult?
The assumption that an infinite Universe could keep the light during the night is a poor fiction.
We actually get a direct light only from galaxies that are drifting away from us at a velocity which is less than a speed of light.
Our scientists assume that due the speed of light, the maximal distance that we can still see a far away galaxy is about 13 Bly.
If we will draw a direct line to any direction up to the infinity, we technically should find only in this line an infinite no of galaxies. However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Therefore, we can't see them. Only 0.0..1 are located at the observable aria in our Universe.
So, the total galaxies in that line which are still located in the "observable aria" are quite neglected and therefore it goes dark at night.
Is it clear?
Everything in our Universe is relative (you can ask Einstein about it...)
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
In order to understand what will happen with a light that is traveling today to our direction, let call it Light A.
So, as any other light in the Universe, Light A had started today its movement to our direction at the speed of light.
However, that speed of light is relevant to its point of source, which is galaxy A.
Hence, as galaxy A is drifting away from us at 10 Times the speed of light, while Light A is moving in our direction at the speed of light, than the real outcome is that Light A is drifting away from us at 9 times the speed of light.
Therefore, light A won't get to us never and ever.
Your answer was:

Interesting, but it just shows that you failed to grasp my other point.
If the universe is expanding, and it always has been, why is there anything still near us?
I should be able to see no stars, or a star in every possible direction.

"Let's assume that there is a galaxy at a distance of 130 BLY (galaxy A) that is drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light."
Who put it there? It has been moving away from us  for an infinite time (according to you). Why is it still there?
My answer was:
Our Universe isn't expanding!!!
Only the matter/galaxies in our infinite Universe are expanding.
I have already copy the explanation for you.
So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 21/04/2020 02:03:49
Dave.
I am very dubious about your ideas, but let's discuss them.  Let's ignore the BBT and concentrate on your ideas.
Am I right in saying your idea is that the universe is infinite in size and infinite in age?
Is another part of your idea that the universe is expanding?  In other words you agree with the observations having to do with red shift and other evidence of expansion?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/04/2020 04:51:59
I am very dubious about your ideas, but let's discuss them.  Let's ignore the BBT and concentrate on your ideas.
Thanks
You are the first person that is really willing to understand Theory D.
So, I do appreciate!

Am I right in saying your idea is that the universe is infinite in size and infinite in age?
Yes
Is another part of your idea that the universe is expanding?
Our Universe is not expanding. It has infinite space. This space is fixed. There is no way to stretch it or expand it over time.
Only the mater/galaxies are expanding in the infinite space of our universe.
Please read the following explanation about the expansion:


Expansion

Based on theory D, there is no need to set any space Expansion. We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.
So how it really works:
Once upon a time a new Born BH had arrived to our Infinite Universe. It was the first spinning BH in the whole empty & dark space.
Due to that spinning momentum, Magnetic field had been created. Therefore, some of its energy had been transformed by that magnetic field to create new particle pairs at the Photon Sphere.  .
One particle from those new created pair had been eaten by this first BH, while the opposite charged particle had been ejected outwards to the magnetic accelerator that we call now - accretion disc..
This BH will increase its mass and energy over time. It will also be converted to the first Massive BH Hosting a dwarf galaxy. Later on it will be converted to a SMBH hosting a mighty spiral galaxy as the Milky Way.
It will generate new atoms, molecular, Asteroids, Moons, Planets, Stars and even its own baby BHs.
So, this first BH will become the mother of the first matter in the Universe.
As we all know - Mothers do not eat their children. Therefore, also this first BH has no intention or need to eat its Babies.
Over time all the new created matter, stars BH's…will be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
Our milky way acts as one of the biggest stars sprinkler in the Universe. Therefore we see more stars outside the galaxy than in the galaxy.
Ejection Velocity (Ve) – The average velocity of the ejected Stars/BHs from the Galaxy.
Each one of the second generation baby BHs will start to create new matter and over time it will be converted to MBH. At that time it might host a new dwarf galaxy while creating other new baby BHs.
Maturity Time (Tm) - The time that it takes to a new born BH till it starts to generate its own baby BHs. I assume that by that time it will host a dwarf galaxy and it will drift away from its Mother galaxy at Ve velocity.
Let's assume that all the new babies are drifting away at the same line direction.
So, the second generation of BHs are drifting away from the first BH at Ve. The next generation will drift away from the first BH at 2Ve. After n generations, the relative velocity between the first mother to the last generation should be nVe.
Based on my calculation:
Let's assume that Ve is equal to the orbital velocity of our Sun around the Galaxy = 220 Km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Therefore, after 1370 generations, the last generation will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first mother galaxy).
We can see it as a rocket over rocket over….rocket. 1370 times.
It will take it = Te * 1370 generations
Therefore, as far as we look, we see that galaxies are drifting at faster velocity from us.
There is no limit for that velocity.
After m * 1370 generations, the relative velocity will be M times the speed of light.
As the Universe is infinite, at the far end there are galaxies that are drifting away from us at almost infinite speed.
However, please be aware that new born BHs are ejected away in all directions. Therefore, in any nearby aria we see that the galaxies are moving in all directions.
Therefore, there is no need to space expansion or dark energy to explain the ultra velocity of the far end galaxies.
We only need to understand, that it is achievable after long enough time.
There is a clear observation for the ejection process. We see that Triangulum (relatively small spiral galaxy – 40 Billion stars)  is directly drifting away from it mother Andromeda (A supper massive spiral galaxy with about one Million Billion stars)
As they are drifting away from each other, they set hydrogen "bridge" between them:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611193632.htm
"The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."

This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.

In other words you agree with the observations having to do with red shift and other evidence of expansion?

Sure
Theory D gives perfect explanation for that red shift.
It also gives perfect explanation for the CMB.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/04/2020 09:18:16
So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.
OK, here's the problem
drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
Things don't travel faster than light.
You can only get that by expanding space itself but.
Our Universe is not expanding.

There's also the problem that matter attracts other matter. so you need to explain what has been pushing all this infinite time (thereby expending an infinite amount of energy- an infinitely worse problem than "funding " the energy for your misunderstanding of the big bang and doubly infinitely worse than actually providing the zero energy needed).
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/04/2020 17:01:40
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 23:59:20
So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.
OK, here's the problem
It is quite clear that whatever I will give you, even if it is correct by 100%, you would never ever accept it.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 23:59:20
drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.
Things don't travel faster than light.
This statement is totally incorrect.
I can prove it even based on our current observation:
If we look to the left we see galaxies that are moving away from us almost at the speed of light.
Let's assume that the further galaxy is Galaxy A.
If we look to the right we also see galaxies that are moving away from us at almost the speed of light.
Let's assume that the further galaxy is Galaxy B.
So, you do understand that the velocity between galaxies A to B is 2c.
Now, Lets assume that we stay at galaxy and look all the way to the left.
So, we should see galaxy C at the further most location that is moving away from A at the speed of light.
In the same way if we stay at galaxy B and look all the way for the right we should see galaxy D that is moving also at the sped of the light.
Therefore, If we stay at C than:
Galaxy A should move away from it at the speed of light
Galaxy B should move away at 3c
Galaxy D should move away at 4c.
I hope that by now you do understand that galaxies could move away from each other at the speed which is much higher than the speed of light.

 
You can only get that by expanding space itself but
Let me tell you something about the expanding the space:
This idea is totally wrong. I really can't understand how any person that calls himself scientist could accept this kind of imagination.
However, if you already set yourself in imagination Universe, than why do you limit the imagination for just expanding in space? What's wrong in one more imagination as expanding in time?
So, now think about an expanding space-time and you can set yourself at the infinite at zero time.
Sorry - it's the time for you to stop dreaming.
There is no expansion in time and there is no expansion in space.
The space in our Universe is Infinite and it was in that condition even before the BBT and before any kind of imagination that you wish to believe on.
Even if you take infinite energy, you won't be able to expand the space even by one centimeter.
If you believe that it is feasible, than please show the law of physics that could support that imagination.
So, the whole idea of expanding in space should be set ASAP in the garbage.

There's also the problem that matter attracts other matter.

Look at our Galaxy
There are about 400 Billion stars. If mater attracts other mater than how could it be that those 400 B Stars do not collide with each other?
Do you know that our galaxy is crossing the space at almost 600Km/s.
For any star in the galaxy, there is at least one outside.
So, it is clear that as our galaxy cross the space at that high velocity it constantly collide with any star that is located in its way.
So, if mater attracts other mater than why those billion stars (that are outside the galaxy) doesn't penetrate into the galaxy and collide with the stars that are already in the galaxy?
Why don't we see them all as they expected to cross into the galaxy and even cross near the solar system?
Sorry - you have a severe misunderstanding about that idea.
so you need to explain what has been pushing all this infinite time (thereby expending an infinite amount of energy- an infinitely worse problem than "funding " the energy for your misunderstanding of the big bang and doubly infinitely worse than actually providing the zero energy needed).
If you try to understand how theory D really works, than you should understand that at any given moment, infinite no of BH, MBH, SMBH, Magnatar, pulsar… are using the gravity and zero energy mechanism to transform the energy into new matter.

However, it should be quite clear to all of us that you have no intention to abandon the BBT.
Therefore, you have no interest in theory D and you would reject any idea that contradicts the BBT.

I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
"Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE"
Is it good enough?
So, what was the reply:
Quote
Quote from: Bobolink on Yesterday at 18:34:38
No it isn't.  That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers.
Indeed so. Express is not a good website to get news from. It is filled with misleading, click-bait articles.

However, you totally ignore the idea that this is a clear OBSERVATION.
It isn't just some sort of idea.
In the article it is state that they have observed very Big BH while based on the BBT its age was too young for that size:
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
So, you can't disqualify that observation just because you don't like it.
If the observation is correct, than you have to deal with that "puzzling" issue.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/04/2020 17:58:31
So, you do understand that the velocity between galaxies A to B is 2c.
No.
I understand physics.
So I know that , for high velocities, newtonian mechanics (such as the additivity of velocities) is inappropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

Shouldn't you have learned that before trying to say that everybody else is wrong?


This idea is totally wrong. I really can't understand how any person that calls himself scientist could accept this kind of imagination.
Because it fits with the observed data.


There are about 400 Billion stars. If mater attracts other mater than how could it be that those 400 B Stars do not collide with each other?

Because they are in orbit. But, if you give them enough time, they will crash into eachother.

So, as you say, they exist.
That's proof that the universe isn't infinitely old.

you would reject any idea that contradicts the BBT.
Well, BBT works, and explains our observations. Your idea, which you keep calling a theory even though it isn't,  does not.
And your idea is based on something which we know to be false.
I'm happy to give up on the BBT for a better idea. but not for a plainly worse one.

However, you totally ignore the idea that this is a clear OBSERVATION.
And you miss the point that the comment about BBT is NOT AN OBSERVATION.
It's an indication that our models of black holes need revisiting. That's no great shock. Our knowledge of BH is, obviously, incomplete.
I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:
You have offered an observation that contradicts one of our models for black holes.
That's really not the same thing.

So  your statement "
I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:
is false.

Now, since you said you could, perhaps you would like to actually show what's wrong with the BBT.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 21/04/2020 23:00:40
Our Universe is not expanding. It has infinite space. This space is fixed. There is no way to stretch it or expand it over time.
Only the mater/galaxies are expanding in the infinite space of our universe.
Please read the following explanation about the expansion:
Please don't feed me your paper a piece at a time for your answers.
So when we see galaxies moving away from us it is because they are moving through space, not because space is expanding?  Correct?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 04:22:39
So when we see galaxies moving away from us it is because they are moving through space, not because space is expanding?  Correct?
Sure

I understand physics.
So I know that , for high velocities, newtonian mechanics (such as the additivity of velocities) is inappropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
Shouldn't you have learned that before trying to say that everybody else is wrong?
Our scientists claim that our observable Universe sphere is about 94 BLY. This sphere is just one part in the entire Universe that should be bigger than that. However, they do not claim that we can see further than 13 BLY as they assume that this is the maximal distance that we can still see galaxies that are moving away almost at the speed of light.
In reality due to this Velocity-addition_formula, there is good chance that we actually see galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light. However, our scientists prefer to claim that the furthest galaxies are moving away ONLY at almost at the speed of light.

I have actually discussed the impact of that formula with Kryptid in the past. If I recall it correctly, he has told me that if an object at the far end space is moving away from us at 1.2 c than theoretically we could still see it. However, there is a limit.
So, let's assume for this discussion that the maximal velocity that we can still see is 1.5c
Now, let's go back to my example:
If we look to the left, we see galaxy A at the furthest location. We assume that it is moving away at almost at the speed of light. However, due to this formula/concept, that galaxy is actually moving away at 1.5c (as this is the maximal velocity that we can still see).
In the same token, if someone was there he cloud only see our galaxy as the furthest galaxy in our direction.
So, we can see to the left galaxy A, while if we look to the right we see galaxy B. Each one of them is moving away from us at the maximal observable velocity of 1.5c.
Therefore, as the velocity between galaxy A to galaxy B is actually 3c, they will clearly won't see each other.
Therefore, our scientists don't claim that we can see a galaxy that is located at 26 BLY away from us (although our observable universe is 94 BLY).

However, based on this Velocity-addition_formula we should set the BBT in the garbage.
If due to this concept we actually see galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, than we actually could see further away from the limited 13 BLY that our scientists have stated.
Therefore, the Big Black hole that our scientists have discovered could be much older than just 13 BY.
So, how could it be that our scientists do not use this Velocity-addition_formula?
As you claim that you understand physics, why don't you use this formula to kick out the BBT? Why only Theory D?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 05:27:20
Sure
That presents a problem, because you said the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity.  How does your idea address that issue?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 11:58:12
That presents a problem, because you said the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity.  How does your idea address that issue?
It is quite clear to me by now that you are using terms/laws/formulas/theories/hypothesis... only to disqualify other theories.
Based on your current understanding about relativity, any galaxy in our Universe couldn't move faster than the speed of light.
However, our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2c
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Our scientists claim that the entire Universe should be quite bigger than this 94 BY
If we just assume that the entire universe is 130 BLY, than a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of 10c.
So, based on the current BBT theory you should know for sure that galaxies are already moving away from each other at a velocity which is much faster than the speed of light.

Therefore, I wonder how could you claim that: "the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity." while you know for sure that based on the BBT galaxies are moving away from each other at least 7 times the speed of light?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 12:32:31
It is quite clear to me by now that you are using terms/laws/formulas/theories/hypothesis... only to disqualify other theories.
The fact that we can't get something to move faster than light isn't something that we dreamed up just to make life difficult for your idea.
If reality does not agree with your so-called "theory" it is not because reality is mistaken.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 12:33:55
This sphere is just one part in the entire Universe that should be bigger than that.
Why?
You are claiming to know about things outside the observable universe.
Have you been there to check?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 12:36:04
As you claim that you understand physics, why don't you use this formula to kick out the BBT? Why only Theory D?
BBT explains it by saying that space expands.
You say space does not expand.

That's the difference.
Did you not realise that?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 13:38:14
It is quite clear to me by now that you are using terms/laws/formulas/theories/hypothesis... only to disqualify other theories.
The way science works is that a hypothesis is presented and the community asks question and challenges the hypothesis to see if it is viable.
Based on your current understanding about relativity, any galaxy in our Universe couldn't move faster than the speed of light.
That is correct, according to relativity nothing can move through space at a speed greater than c.  Which is why I said this is an issue for your idea.  It seems like this is something that should be addressed!
However, our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2c
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Our scientists claim that the entire Universe should be quite bigger than this 94 BY
If we just assume that the entire universe is 130 BLY, than a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of 10c.
So, based on the current BBT theory you should know for sure that galaxies are already moving away from each other at a velocity which is much faster than the speed of light.
I wanted to talk about your idea not the BBT.  As you have said the BBT is wrong so there is no reason to bring it into the conversation.
Therefore, I wonder how could you claim that: "the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity." while you know for sure that based on the BBT galaxies are moving away from each other at least 7 times the speed of light?
I do not know that for sure!  Please don't assume you know what I think.

Getting back to your hypothesis, I would like to know how it handles this apparent conflict with relativity.  To my way of thinking there are 3(?) options:
1.  Relativity is wrong.
2.  There is some sort of mechanism in your hypothesis that allows superlumial velocities without violating relativity.
3.  The galaxies only appear to be moving faster than light.

Is one of those correct or is it something else?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 14:50:33
I do not know that for sure!  Please don't assume you know what I think.
So, please look again at my calculation:
our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2c
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Do you agree that the furthest galaxies at our observable universe are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light (7.23c?)?

Getting back to your hypothesis, I would like to know how it handles this apparent conflict with relativity.  To my way of thinking there are 3(?) options:
1.  Relativity is wrong.
2.  There is some sort of mechanism in your hypothesis that allows superlumial velocities without violating relativity.
3.  The galaxy only appear to be moving faster than light.
Well, relativity is relatively.
If you understand theory D, you would see that there is no contradiction.
Let's look at the following example - Rocket over rocket over....rocket.
We know from relativity that:
"Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light"
So, the maximal velocity of a rocket must be finite and significantly less than the speed of light.
However, this is relativity to its base.
Therefore, let's assume that a rocket can travel at 0.01 c.
I hope that you agree that there is no problem with that estimation.
So, let's assume that we fire a rocket (rocket 1) from earth (let's ignore the gravity impact of the earth). This rocket cross the space at 0.01c.
After one day a second rocket (rocket 2) is fired from that rocket 2 also at 0.01c and in the same direction as rocket 1.
In this case, do you agree that the relative velocities are as follow?
Erath to Rocket 1 = 0.01c
Rocket 1 to rocket 2 = 0.01c
Earth to rocket 2 = 0.02c.
Now, if we continue with this process every day than after 10 days:
Earth to rocket 10 = 10 * 0.01 c = 0.1c
With regards to rocket 10.
Let's assume that it can only see rocket 9. In this case, if we were riding on rocket 10 we could think that we are moving at only 0.01c with regards to the space. as rocket 9 is the only relative reference that we have.
If we continue than after 100 days:
Earth to Rocket 100 = 1c
However, again
If rocket 100 can only see rocket 99 it might think that its relative velocity is just 0.01c
If we continue more and more than after 1000 days:
Earth to Rocket 1000 = 10c
Also in this case, rocket 1000 that only see rocket 999 might think that its velocity is only 0.1c
So, Rocket 1000 considers that it is only crossing the space at 0.01 c while relatively to earth it is moving away at 10c.
Do you see any violation in the relativity?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 15:31:57
a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2c
That's still wrong.
You can't just add relativistic velocities as if they were apples.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 15:36:50
Do you agree that the furthest galaxies at our observable universe are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light (7.23c?)?
I want to discuss your hypothesis, no need to go over what the BBT says.
Well, relativity is relatively.
If you understand theory D, you would see that there is no contradiction.
Let's look at the following example - Rocket over rocket over....rocket.
We know from relativity that:
"Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light"
So, the maximal velocity of a rocket must be finite and significantly less than the speed of light.
However, this is relativity to its base.
Therefore, let's assume that a rocket can travel at 0.01 c.
I hope that you agree that there is no problem with that estimation.
So, let's assume that we fire a rocket (rocket 1) from earth (let's ignore the gravity impact of the earth). This rocket cross the space at 0.01c.
After one day a second rocket (rocket 2) is fired from that rocket 2 also at 0.01c and in the same direction as rocket 1.
In this case, do you agree that the relative velocities are as follow?
Erath to Rocket 1 = 0.01c
Rocket 1 to rocket 2 = 0.01c
Earth to rocket 2 = 0.02c.
Now, if we continue with this process every day than after 10 days:
Earth to rocket 10 = 10 * 0.01 c = 0.1c
With regards to rocket 10.
Let's assume that it can only see rocket 9. In this case, if we were riding on rocket 9 we could think that we are moving at only 0.01c with regards to the space. as rocket 9 is the only relative reference that we have.
If we continue than after 100 days:
Earth to Rocket 100 = 1c
However, again
If rocket 100 can only see rocket 99 it might think that its relative velocity is just 0.01c
If we continue more and more than after 1000 days:
Earth to Rocket 1000 = 10c
Also in this case, rocket 1000 that only see rocket 999 might think that its velocity is only 0.1c
So, Rocket 1000 considers that it is only crossing the space at 0.01 c while relatively to earth it is moving away at 10c.
Do you see any violation in the relativity?
Yes, that is a clear violation of the theory of relativity.  According to relativity no mass can travel at the speed of light let alone exceed it.  If laser pulses were sent from earth along side the series of rockets, in this scenario, after rocket 100 the subsequent rockets would pass the laser pulses since they exceed c relative to earth where the laser light is coming from.

So it sounds like choice 1?  If you agree that choice 1 is correct we can move on, if not we can continue with the relativity discussion.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 15:46:08
Yes, that is a clear violation of the theory of relativity.  According to relativity no mass can travel at the speed of light let alone exceed it.  If laser pulses were sent from earth along side the series of rockets, in this scenario, after rocket 100 the subsequent rockets would pass the laser pulses since they exceed c relative to earth where the laser light is coming from.

So it sounds like choice 1?  If you agree that choice 1 is correct we can move on, if not we can continue with the relativity discussion.

Why not?
In the following article it is stated:
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PatriciaKong.shtml
"Due to relativity, the speed of the Milky Way varies when compared with different objects in space."
So, we can estimate our velocity only by observing different objects in space.
Do we see any fixed reference in the space?
If we can't see any object around us, how could we know our real velocity in space?
Based on this article, only the observable objects in the space could give us an indication about our relative velocity at our current location.
So, if each rocket can only see a nearby rocket, than each one of them could think that its velocity is only 0.01c while as I have proved, the rocket 1000 is moving away from earth at 10c.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 15:47:03

In this case, do you agree that the relative velocities are as follow?
Erath to Rocket 1 = 0.01c
Rocket 1 to rocket 2 = 0.01c
Earth to rocket 2 = 0.02c.
No.
Of course I don't agree.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 15:47:46
So, if each rocket can only see a nearby rocket, than each one of them could think that its velocity is only 0.01c while as I have proved, the rocket 1000 is moving away from earth at 10c.
No matter how many times you say that, it is still wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 16:09:11
Why not?
As I pointed out, a laser from earth pointed parallel to the rockets would go slower than the all the rockets after rocket 100.  Do you disagree with that?
In the following article it is stated:
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PatriciaKong.shtml
"Due to relativity, the speed of the Milky Way varies when compared with different objects in space."
So, we can estimate our velocity only by observing different objects in space.
Correct velocity is relative.  There is no absolute frame of reference.
Do we see any fixed reference in the space?
No.
If we can't see any object around us, how could we know our real velocity in space?
You cannot, it is not even worth asking what is our 'real' velocity.
So, if each rocket can only see a nearby rocket, than each one of them could think that its velocity is only 0.01c while as I have proved, the rocket 1000 is moving away from earth at 10c.
What about the laser light that is moving along side the train of rockets?  The rockets will exceed the speed of that laser light!  That violates relativity.  We can see billions of light years away so we could see all of the rockets from earth anyway (if the telescope was powerful enough).
So it is still looking like number 1 is your answer.

edit to add:  I am not trying to do 'gotcha'.  If you think relativity does not apply in this case, that is certainly an issue that needs to be hashed out at some point, but I have no problem saying ok and moving on.  If you want to continue with the relativity discussion that is fine too.

Additional edit:  Let's make a number 4,
4.  It is not clear how relativity plays out in theory D, this will be more fully investigated at a later date.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 16:36:21
So it is still looking like number 1 is your answer.
I don't think he feels that relativity is wrong.
I just don't think he understands what it means.


Anyway, if he's going to say that relativity is wrong, he's going to struggle.
It's probably the best tested idea in the whole of science.
It may be that's why he won't say he disagrees with it.
But the problem is, if it's correct (or even close), then his idea of an infinitely old universe fails.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 16:56:05
I don't think he feels that relativity is wrong.
I just don't think he understands what it means.


Anyway, if he's going to say that relativity is wrong, he's going to struggle.
It's probably the best tested idea in the whole of science.
It may be that's why he won't say he disagrees with it.
But the problem is, if it's correct (or even close), then his idea of an infinitely old universe fails.
I certainly don't disagree, I am just interested in discussing his idea to see where it leads.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 18:22:15
As I pointed out, a laser from earth pointed parallel to the rockets would go slower than the all the rockets after rocket 100.  Do you disagree with that?
Yes, that is correct
Correct velocity is relative.  There is no absolute frame of reference.
Thanks
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:46:08
If we can't see any object around us, how could we know our real velocity in space?
You cannot, it is not even worth asking what is our 'real' velocity.
Thanks again
What about the laser light that is moving along side the train of rockets?  The rockets will exceed the speed of that laser light!  That violates relativity. 
No. It doesn't.
We currently see that activity in our real Universe.
I have already offered an example for that.

Quote
Quote from: Bobolink on Today at 05:27:20
However, our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2c
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Our scientists claim that the entire Universe should be quite bigger than this 94 BY
If we just assume that the entire universe is 130 BLY, than a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of 10c.
So, based on the current BBT theory you should know for sure that galaxies are already moving away from each other at a velocity which is much faster than the speed of light.
I wanted to talk about your idea not the BBT.  As you have said the BBT is wrong so there is no reason to bring it into the conversation.
You might think that I focus on BBT, But I want to highlight that even today we know that there are galaxies that are moving away from us a speed which is faster than the speed of light.
I assume that it was very clear also to Bored chemist.
However, if I understand him correctly, he claims that this speed of higher than the speed of light is due to expansion.
BBT explains it by saying that space expands.
You say space does not expand.
That's the difference.
Did you not realise that?
So, as long as galaxies are moving away from each other significantly faster than the speed of light due to the expansion than this is fully ok for Bored chemist.
However, for me - as long as we all agree that galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed o light than this is good enough.
So back to your question:
What about the laser light that is moving along side the train of rockets?  The rockets will exceed the speed of that laser light!  That violates relativity.  We can see billions of light years away so we could see all of the rockets from earth anyway (if the telescope was powerful enough).
So it is still looking like number 1 is your answer.
It is clear that at the far end of our visible universe there is a galaxy that is moving away at a speed that is almost the speed of light. We clearly see that galaxy.
If we could stay at that far end galaxy we should clearly see many more galaxies that are located further away and moving away from this galaxy at ultra high velocity.
Therefore, it is clear that behind the furthest galaxy that we can still see, there are more galaxies that are moving away faster than the speed of light that we can't see.
So, if the relativity can accept the idea that galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light due to expansion, than relativity should except the idea that galaxies are moving away due to Rocket over rocket.
If you think about it, there is almost full similarity between the two ideas.
In the expansion any two nearby points are moving away from each other at a fixed velocity. We call it the expansion rate.
The Rocket over rocket works the same as the expansion.
Any two nearby rockets are moving away from each other at a fixed velocity. So the outcome is identical to the expansion.

Let me offer a better solution.
However, let's start by the following explanation about the expansion:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."
so, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
So, in one day the expansion rate is
75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
So, Let's assume the Universe is empty
I have unlimited no of rockets over rocket over...rocket.
So I start at a single point in this empty universe. Let's call it A.
I fire 6 rockets at the same moment to all directions (up/down/left right/inwards/outwards
Those rockets should move exactly at the expansion rate.
After one day we will fire 6 rockets from each of those first 6 rockets. So in total we will fire 6^2 = 36 rockets at the second day.
On the 10 day we will fire 6^10 rockets
At the 1000 days = 6^1000.. and so on.
So, if we will continue with this process for 13.8 BY we will get exactly the same impact as the expansion.
Therefore, as Bored chemist had accepted the idea of galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light due to the expansion, he also should accept the idea of moving faster than a speed of light due to the Rocket over rocket mechanism.
As the expansion doesn't violate the relativity, then also rocket over rocket doesn't violate.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 18:34:53
Therefore, as Bored chemist had accepted the idea of galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light due to the expansion, he also should accept the idea of moving faster than a speed of light due to the Rocket over rocket mechanism.
As the expansion doesn't violate the relativity, then also rocket over rocket doesn't violate.
That's just not true.
And, no matter how many times you say it, it with still not be true.

The fabric of space times is not the same as a rocket.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2020 18:43:35
That's just not true.
And, no matter how many times you say it, it with still not be true.
Simple question

Do you agree that in our current observable universe there are galaxies that are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light?
Please - yes or no
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2020 19:06:13
That's just not true.
And, no matter how many times you say it, it with still not be true.
Simple question

Do you agree that in our current observable universe there are galaxies that are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light?
Please - yes or no

For the sake of discussion we can forego the issue of "from whose point of view".

Yes, I think there are.
And they were got to that speed by an expansion of space time.
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 20:40:21
No. It doesn't.
We currently see that activity in our real Universe.
I have already offered an example for that.
OK.  How about this, your hypothesis agrees with the theory of relativity and in addition states that galaxies can move through space a superluminal speeds.  Correct?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 03:31:57
For the sake of discussion we can forego the issue of "from whose point of view".

Yes, I think there are.
And they were got to that speed by an expansion of space time.
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
Wow
Many thanks for this great article
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
So we have a valid confirmation that far away galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."
They also claim that this activity doesn't violate the relativity due to the expansion theory:
"This sounds like it breaks Einstein’s theories, but it doesn’t. The galaxies themselves aren’t actually moving very quickly through space, it’s the space itself which is expanding away, and the galaxy is being carried along with it. As long as the galaxy doesn’t try to move quickly through space, no physical laws are broken."

OK.  How about this, your hypothesis agrees with the theory of relativity and in addition states that galaxies can move through space a superluminal speeds.  Correct?

We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.
Our scientists claim that this activity doesn't violate relativity due to the expansion.
So do you agree that now we need to discuss why rocket over rocket has the same impact as the expansion?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 23/04/2020 13:55:30
We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.
It was never in doubt that the recession velocity of galaxy can exceed c, that has been known for decades.
Our scientists claim that this activity doesn't violate relativity due to the expansion.
Correct, it does not violate relativity, that is taught in the introductory astronomy classes, even 35 years ago when I took one.
So do you agree that now we need to discuss why rocket over rocket has the same impact as the expansion?
I had wanted to discuss your ideas not the BBT, but you really don't seem to.
I fear that this will be a waste of time, because you have not shown a much willingness to change your mind.

OK.

Galaxies move through space, like everything else in space.  For instance the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way galaxy are moving through space towards each other at 130 km/sec.  The speed that something can move through space is limited by the speed of light.

The universe is also expanding.  That means that galaxies that are far apart are moving away from each other due the expansion, this is called recession velocity.  Since this movement is not through space it is not limited to the speed of light.

Your idea of rockets shooting rockets means they move through space therefore no matter how many rockets you have you cannot travel at c.

What questions do you have?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 16:25:49
The universe is also expanding.  That means that galaxies that are far apart are moving away from each other due the expansion, this is called recession velocity.  Since this movement is not through space it is not limited to the speed of light.
Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expanding
You have already confirmed that our scientists do not measure the space itself.
I hope that you agree that the expansion is measured ONLY by the observable galaxies.
However, our scientists assume that the only explanation for that is space expansion.
I claim that there is no way to set expansion in space as there is no way to set expansion in time. Space is fixed and time is fixed.
Your idea of rockets shooting rockets means they move through space therefore no matter how many rockets you have you cannot travel at c.
The space has no frame.
Therefore, we will never know what is our real velocity with reference to space.
We can just measure our velocity with reference to observable galaxies.
Hence, theoretically, if all the observable galaxies are moving together at one million c in the open space we will not be able to verify it.

I will try to prove that Rocket over rocket works identically as the expansion in place.
Let's look again in the following explanation about the expansion:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."

Therefore, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
In one day the expansion rate is 75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
1 Year = 365 days
In 1,000 years = 365 10^3 days. So, in one 1,000 years the expansion is: 6,480,000 * 365 *10^3 = 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km
We know that 1 Light Year = 9.4605E+12 Kilometers
We also know that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
Therefore, 3 Million LY means
9.4605 10^12 * 3 = 28.3815 10^12 km
So, in order for the expansion to multiply the size 3LY, we need:
1,000 year * 28.3815 10^12 km / 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km= 12,000 Years
Hence, 12,000 years are needed for the expansion to multiply the distance of two nearby galaxies from 3Light years to 6 Light years.
So, in 12,000 years a Volume of the 3x3x3 = 27 Ly cube had been increased to 6x6x6 = 216 ly
Therefore, in every 12,000 years the volume of our space is increasing by 6^3/ 3^3 = 3^2 = 8
So, let's see the meaning of this expansion:

Based on this key information about the expansion in space, let's compare this theory to Rocket over rocket

Let's assume that we have only 6 galaxies in the Universe that are located exactly at the edges of a 3x3x3 LY cube
Those galaxies aren't moving in space and there are no other galaxies in all the infinite space
Each galaxy is just located at other side of the 3x3x3 ly Cube
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside.
They stay there without any movement.
Now we will try to verify the impact of space expansion Vs rocket over rocket.
Action 1
Space expansion:
Let's start the timer of the expansion is space of 75 kilometers/ sec while the whole universe size is 3x3x3 Ly:
Due to this expansion in space, each galaxy is moving now at those 75 kilometers/sec in its direction.
After 12,000 years the space cube of 3x3x3 will be increased to 6x6x6.
Therefore we will get the galaxies at the edge of that cube.
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside while each one of them is moving at 75 kilometers/sec in its direction.

Rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:
In this case, let's assume that we only fire just one rocket/galaxy at a time from each galaxy and in the direction of the expansion.
Let's start the timer of the rocket over rocket:
The galaxy that is located upwards, should fire a new rocket/galaxy upwards at 75 kilometers/sec.
The galaxy that is located downwards, should fire a new rocket/galaxy downwards at 75 kilometers/sec.

The galaxy that is located at the lefts, should fire a new rocket/galaxy to the left at 75 kilometers/sec.

The galaxy that is located at the right, should fire a new rocket/galaxy to the right at 75 kilometers/sec.
And so on
Therefore, after 12,000 years we should get the new rockets/ galaxies exactly at the edge of the 6x6x6 cube while each one of them is moving at a velocity of 75Km/sec
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside - each one of them is moving at 75 kilometers in its direction.
So far Rocket over rocket is identical to space expansion.

Action 2
Space expansion:
After the next 12,000 years  the space cube of 6x6x6 will be increased to 12x12x12 while the recession velocity of galaxy at each edge of the cube should be 75x2 = 150 Km/sec.
Therefore we will get the galaxies at the edge of that 12x12x12 cube.
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside while each one of them is moving at 150 kilometers/sec in its direction.

Rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:
Let's fire the next cycle of rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:

We already know that the galaxy that is located upwards is moving upwards at 75 Km/s. As it fires its new rocket/galaxy in the same direction of its movement - (upwards) , than this new rocket/galaxy should move now at 150 km/sec. (75+75 = 150)
Same issue with any galaxy at any side.
So, as the velocity of each new rocket/galaxy is twice the speed of 75 Km/sec, than after 12,000 years each one of them should cross exactly 6 LY
Therefore, after the next 12,000 years the new fired rockets will set a perfect cube of 12x12x12 LY  (6+6 x 6+6 x 6+6) while their velocity is 150 Km/s (each one - in each direction)
This is also identical to space expansion.
I could go on and on and you will find that after any time frame of 12,000 years we get exactly the same impact as the space expansion.
Therefore, if space expansion is identical to rocket over rocket system, than their outcome should be identical.
As the expansion in space can set a recession velocity of galaxy that exceeds c, than the rocket over rocket can do it without any difficulties.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2020 17:11:38
Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expanding
Yes we do. Because the more distant galaxies are receding faster.

You need to recognise that, just because you don't know something doesn't mean it is unknown.


If your rocket was far enough away, it wouldn't need to use its engines to move away from us faster than light.

(75+75 = 150)
VELOCITIES DO NOT ADD LIKE THAT.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I TELL YOU THAT PRETENDING THEY DO DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 23/04/2020 18:07:39
Well, we don't really know if the Universe is expanding or if the galaxies are expanding
You have already confirmed that our scientists do not measure the space itself.
I hope that you agree that the expansion is measured ONLY by the observable galaxies.
However, our scientists assume that the only explanation for that is space expansion.
I claim that there is no way to set expansion in space as there is no way to set expansion in time. Space is fixed and time is fixed.
This is counter to the BBT, General Relativity and others.  You need evidence that refutes these ideas, your incredulity is not enough.
Therefore, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
In one day the expansion rate is 75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
1 Year = 365 days
In 1,000 years = 365 10^3 days. So, in one 1,000 years the expansion is: 6,480,000 * 365 *10^3 = 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km
We know that 1 Light Year = 9.4605E+12 Kilometers
We also know that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
Therefore, 3 Million LY means
9.4605 10^12 * 3 = 28.3815 10^12 km
So, in order for the expansion to multiply the size 3LY, we need:
1,000 year * 28.3815 10^12 km / 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km= 12,000 Years
Hence, 12,000 years are needed for the expansion to multiply the distance of two nearby galaxies from 3Light years to 6 Light years.
So, in 12,000 years a Volume of the 3x3x3 = 27 Ly cube had been increased to 6x6x6 = 216 ly
Therefore, in every 12,000 years the volume of our space is increasing by 6^3/ 3^3 = 3^2 = 8
So, let's see the meaning of this expansion:
I'll assume your arithmetic is correct, but your concept is wrong.  Each km increase in distance between the galaxies increases the recession velocity.  In other words galaxies separated by 1 megaparsec have a recession velocity of 75 km/sec and galaxies separated by 2 megaparsecs have a recession velocity of 150 km/sec.  You need to take that into account.
Action 1
Oh boy, this is going to be difficult... I wish you would just ask questions..
Space expansion:
Let's start the timer of the expansion is space of 75 kilometers/ sec while the whole universe size is 3x3x3 Ly:
I assume you mean 75 kilometer/sec/megaparsec.  I also assume you mean 3x3x3 mega ly.
Due to this expansion in space, each galaxy is moving now at those 75 kilometers/sec in its direction.
That makes no sense because the constant is 75 kilometers/sec/megaparsec.  So for one of the galaxies at a corner of the cube, 3 of the galaxies would have the recession velocity of 75 km/sec,  3 of the other galaxies would have recession velocity of 106 km/sec and the last galaxy would have a recession velocity of 130 km/sec.

Just look at 2 galaxies to reduce the complexity!
Assume that there 2 galaxies that are 1 megaparsec apart.  That would mean that the recession velocity as seen by either galaxy would be 75 km/sec.  At some later time the galaxies will be 2 megaparsecs apart, when that is true the recession velocity will be 150 km/sec.

Rocket over rocket or galaxy over galaxy:
In this case, let's assume that we only fire just one rocket/galaxy at a time from each galaxy and in the direction of the expansion.
There is no directions of expansion!  If you blow up a balloon, what direction is it expanding??
Therefore, after 12,000 years we should get the new rockets/ galaxies exactly at the edge of the 6x6x6 cube while each one of them is moving at a velocity of 75Km/sec
One up, one down, one left, one right one inside one outside - each one of them is moving at 75 kilometers in its direction.
So far Rocket over rocket is identical to space expansion.
No your analysis is wrong because you forgot to factor in the expansion of space!  The rocket moves away from the galaxy at 75 km/sec.  So after 12,000 years the rocket will still be moving through space at 75 km/sec away from the galaxy.  However, there is also an increase in distance between the galaxy just from the expansion of space.  That also means that there will be a recession velocity between the rocket and the galaxy.   In other words the rocket will be much farther from the galaxy than you calculated.

I think your big misconception is that you still think of galaxies as moving through space instead of space expanding .

Instead of you trying to calculate things without fully understanding the concepts, wouldn't be much easier for you to ask questions about why the rocket and expansion are treated differntly?

I am not going to look at the rest of the post until we can get the basics sorted out.

Edit for clarity.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 20:20:52
This is counter to the BBT, General Relativity and others.  You need evidence that refutes these ideas, your incredulity is not enough.
Ok
The evidence is as follow:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"These pulsating stars are vital rungs in what astronomers call the cosmic distance ladder: a set of objects with known distances that, when combined with the speeds at which the objects are moving away from us, reveal the expansion rate of the universe," said Glenn Wahlgren, Spitzer program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
So, it is clear that our scientists are measuring far end objects as pulsating stars.
Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.
So, our scientists have never ever set any sort of measurements with regards to the space.
They have only measured objects with reference to other objects in the space.
Therefore, the idea that there is an expansion in space could be as good as there is expansion in time.
I can't prove it or disprove it.
Our scientists are free to assume whatever they wish.
However, they can't just claim that they have measured the expansion in space as this is misleading information.
They have to highlight that they have only measured objects in space.
Those pulsating stars give indications only about the matter in the space and not about the space itself.
Therefore, the assumption that those pulsating stars are moving due to space expansion is just an assumption.

I assume you mean 75 kilometer/sec/megaparsec.  I also assume you mean 3x3x3 mega ly.
Yes, that is correct

That makes no sense because the constant is 75 kilometers/sec/megaparsec.  So for one of the galaxies at a corner of the cube, 3 of the galaxies would have the recession velocity would be 75 km/sec,  3 of the other galaxies would have recession velocity of 106 km/sec and the last galaxy would have a recession velocity of 130 km/sec.
Well, I have used the center of that 3x3x3x MLY as the reference point for the directions and velocities.
Just look at 2 galaxies to reduce the complexity!
Assume that there 2 galaxies that are 1 megaparsec apart.  That would mean that they recession velocity as seen by either galaxy would be 75 km/sec.  At some later time the galaxies will be 2 megaparsecs apart, when that is true the recession velocity will be 150 km/sec.
Yes, perfect idea

There is no directions of expansion!  If you blow up a balloon, what direction is it expanding??
Based on theory D, new born BH are ejected in all directions. Did you know that our scientists have discovered more than 10,000 BH in the center of our galaxy? So those baby BH should be ejected outwards from the galaxy. It might take them some time to do so. by that time they might increase their mass and might host a dwarf galaxy.
Do you know that out of the 195 galaxies in our aria, about 100 are considered as satellites of the Milky Way and Andromeda.
So, first they are born near the SMBH. Then they are drifted all the way to the far end of the galaxy. at that time they are quite massive and considered as a satellites
The last phase is the final ejection. Out of the 190 galaxies, 90 galaxies have already ejected from their mater galaxy. Each one of them might move to a different location. There is good chance that they are drifting away at the expansion velocity of 75Km/s.
In any case, as there are so many babies, sooner or later at least one of them should move in the same direction as its matter galaxy.
Therefore, I have focused only on the one that is moving in that direction.
So, the baby/dwarf galaxies that are ejected from its mother' galaxy acts as a rocket that is fired from the galaxy.
Therefore, to make it short, let's just assume that every time one baby galaxy/rocket had been ejected/fired in the direction that we wish.
The rocket moves away from the galaxy at 75 km/sec.  So after 12,000 years the rocket will still be moving through space at 75 km/hour away from the galaxy.  However, there is also an increase in distance between the galaxy just from the expansion of space.  That also means that there will be a recession velocity between the rocket and the galaxy.
Yes, all of that is correct
In other words the rocket will be much farther from the galaxy than you calculated.
As you have offered, let's focus only on two galaxies at 2D. So, if they are located at a distance of 3MLY from each other, then based on the expansion theory they should move away from each other at 75Km/s.
I think your big misconception is that you still think of galaxies as moving through space instead of space expanding .
Yes, I think that galaxies are moving through space because that exactly the way that our scientists are measuring the expansion.
If you can prove that our scientists are measuring the space (or space frame) than I'm ready to accept the idea that the space is expanding.

Instead of you trying to calculate things without fully understanding the concepts, wouldn't be much easier for you to ask questions about why the rocket and expansion are treated differntly?
Well, I'm quite sure about theory D. please try to understand how it works and let me know if you see any problems with this theory.
I am not going to look at the rest of the post until we can get the basics sorted out.
Now we discuss about the idea that rocket over rocket syatem is  almost identical to the expansion in space process.
Take your time and let me know if you have any question.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2020 20:37:02
Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.
What "frame".

Those stars are certainly in spacetime.
Where else could they be?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2020 20:38:19
So, our scientists have never ever set any sort of measurements with regards to the space.
Yes they have.
Red shift, for a start.

Why do you keep making false claims about what science had done (or not done).
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2020 20:40:18
If you can prove that our scientists are measuring the space (or space frame) than I'm ready to accept the idea that the space is expanding.
Well, traveling through space at more than C is impossible.
Travelling with expanding space at more than C is possible.
We see things travelling at more than C.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 23/04/2020 21:07:58
"These pulsating stars are vital rungs in what astronomers call the cosmic distance ladder: a set of objects with known distances that, when combined with the speeds at which the objects are moving away from us, reveal the expansion rate of the universe," said Glenn Wahlgren, Spitzer program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
So, it is clear that our scientists are measuring far end objects as pulsating stars.
Those pulsating stars are not connected to the space frame.
Oh for crying out loud, the stars are called cepheid variables.
What does "not connected to the space frame" mean?
Take your time and let me know if you have any question.
Why is it that no matter where look in the universe we find that outside of our local group the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it is moving away from us?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2020 08:34:03
Oh for crying out loud, the stars are called cepheid variables.
What does "not connected to the space frame" mean?
"Cepheid" By Google translate - "a variable star having a regular cycle of brightness with a frequency related to its luminosity, so allowing estimation of its distance from the earth."

So, this variable star is allowing estimation of its distance from the earth.

However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?
You have already confirmed that:
Correct velocity is relative.  There is no absolute frame of reference.

Let's assume that we only see one Cepheid moving away from us at 0.5c.
So our distance and relative velocity to that Cepheid is very clear.
However, with regards to the absolute space frame of reference:
Can we verify that one of us is fixed in this absolute frame of reference?

Now add as many cepheid variables as you wish.
If we all are crossing the absolute frame of reference at 1c or 10c, would we notice it?

So, when our scientists have measured our relative velocity is space, they didn't claim for the absolute space frame of reference.
They just found our relative velocity with regards to the observable objects as those Cepheid variables.

Therefore, as we can't measure the absolute space frame of reference, how can we claim that there is expansion that we measure the space itself?
Sorry – don't you see that this statement is a misleading information?.
It is OK that our scientists think/assume that the space expansion could solve their problem.
However, how could they claim that they have really measured the space expansion as they clearly can't measure the absolute frame of reference.
Why is it that no matter where look in the universe we find that outside of our local group the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it is moving away from us?
Are you sure about it?

Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.
So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This galaxy is located at a distance of  58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc) 
Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us.
"The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"
Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/s
Now, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.
Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.
Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?







Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 24/04/2020 12:58:52
However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?
I am afraid that is a stupid question.  Of course you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of Relativity so it is not surprising you asked.
Well at least you now have vague notion what a cepheid variable star is, so you accidentally learned a bit about astronomy.
Let's assume that we only see one Cepheid moving away from us at 0.5c.
So our distance and relative velocity to that Cepheid is very clear.
However, with regards to the absolute space frame of reference:
Can we verify that one of us is fixed in this absolute frame of reference?
You really need to learn some basic physics.  We can't have meaningful discussion if you are ignorant of the subject.
Therefore, as we can't measure the absolute space frame of reference, how can we claim that there is expansion that we measure the space itself?
Your inability to understand these observations doesn't make them wrong, it must means you can't understand them.
Are you sure about it?
Yes.  It is obvious, are you really ignorant of that too?
Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.
So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This galaxy is located at a distance of  58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc)
Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us.
"The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"
Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/s
Now, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.
Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.
Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?
The explanation like most of physics appears to be over your head since your education is clearly confined to cruising the internet.  The site where you found M90 would have explained it, but alas you did not understand.  I am afraid I couldn't explain it to you with out using big words and slightly difficult concepts.

I suppose you should just continue to use your caricature of a theory to bolster your fantasy that you are a great astrophysicist.

Isn't pretending is fun!  Not very rewarding, but I guess if it is all you have...
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2020 15:21:14
I am afraid that is a stupid question.  Of course you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of Relativity so it is not surprising you asked.
Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge, you didn't answer any question and totally ignored all the key issues.
This is a perfect strategy to anyone that has no answers.
However, it is quite frustrated as I had higher expectations from you.
In any case, I do appreciate your support so far and please feel free to ignore this thread.
You don't have to force yourself reading my explanation, especially if you don't like the subject.

However, just for the record l would like to offer one more example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921
NGC 4921 is a barred spiral galaxy in the Coma Cluster, located in the constellation Coma Berenices. It is about 320 million light-years from Earth.
So, based on the expansion rate, it should move away at:
75 * 320/3 = 8,000 Km/sec
Surprizingly, it only moves at 5,482 km/s[2]
So, if the expansion rate is correct, than this galaxy is moving against the space expansion in our direction at almost 2,500 Km/sec.
The expansion theory is working only in expanding the volume of the space/Universe. Therefore, it can only increase the distance between galaxies.
If that theory was correct, it was not expected to see any galaxy that contradicts the expansion rate so dramatically.
I know that our scientists try to explain this unexpected observation by "Gravity"
That was the answer for the discovery of Andromeda in the direction of the milky way.
However, they ignore the real meaning of gravity. It isn't momentum.
Gravity can't just pull galaxies in a specific direction and keep them in a direct momentum.
This is a fantasy
If someone who has better appreciation to my knowledge will ask it, I will answer with pleasure.

In any case, with regards to the space expansion
Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLY
So, if that is correct, than the volume of the universe is increasing by 8 every 1200 years.
Therefore, the density of our universe should be reduce by 8 every 1200 Years.
This must have severe impact on every aspect including the CMB.
This is something that we had to verify by observation in just few years.
However, if I understand it correctly, our scientists don't see any reduction in the density of the Universe or any change in the CMB.
I also assume that they will never ever see any change in the density or the CMB even after trillion years from now.
Theory D is the only theory that gives perfect explanation for any observation in our Universe.
You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2020 17:19:10
However, how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?
You have already confirmed that:
Quote from: Bobolink on 22/04/2020 16:09:11
Correct velocity is relative.  There is no absolute frame of reference.
Did you read that through before you posted it?

Did you stop and think something like this?

I'm saying that this guy has confirmed that there is no absolute frame of reference.
and now I'm asking
" how this Cepheid can give us any real indication about our relative velocity with regards to the absolute space frame reference?"

I'm asking how how it is related to something which I know does not exist".


It's like asking if it's faster than a unicorn.


Why do you post stuff like that?
Do you enjoy getting laughed at?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2020 17:21:14
Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge,
We are not talking about deep knowledge here.
We are talking about common sense.
If something does not exist, you can't measure your speed relative to it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 24/04/2020 17:27:56
Well, out of highlighting my deep poor knowledge, you didn't answer any question and totally ignored all the key issues.
This is a perfect strategy to anyone that has no answers.
However, it is quite frustrated as I had higher expectations from you.
Yeah, sorry to let you down.  The problem is that while your 'theory' is astonishingly bad, I thought it would be fun to discuss it with you but the way you stubbornly cling to your ignorance was to annoying.

Looking through your goofy ideas just leads to me thinking after each sentence, no, nope, wrong, wrong, absurd...

I mean not only is the science wrong the history is wrong! 

Here is a couple examples:
To my best knowledge, Einstein had totally rejected the BBT.
Not surprisingly, the best of your knowledge, falls well short of the mark.
He has also rejected his first idea for cosmological constant. He called it: the greatest blunder.
The field equations of General Relativity resulted in a universe that was either expanding or contracting, he thought that must be wrong, so he put in a constant to make the universe static.  When he saw the evidence that the universe was expanding he took out his 'blunder' from the field equations.
I don't know why you brought up Einstein anyway, you have already shown that you don't think relativity is correct.  Of course you are so lost that you may not even know that you violate relativity. 

So basically I once again am forced to reveal your ignorance

You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.
I guess you're right, nothing will compel you to learn any science.  Too bad, but it doesn't hurt me any. [shrug]
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2020 17:50:15
You can keep on highlighting my poor knowledge. It won't help.
Yes, it will help.
It will help other people who come here. They might not have the background to realise that you are passing of gibberish as science.
But having someone here point out that you are just bewilderingly badly wrong, will let them know.
It would also help you; if you stopped being so pig headed and went off and learned stuff.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 03:56:30
Yes, it will help.
It will help other people who come here. They might not have the background to realise that you are passing of gibberish as science.
If you both claim that you know science better than me, than why don't you answer the following questions with regards to the Expansion rate impact, CMB and BBT?
1.
Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.
So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This galaxy is located at a distance of  58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc)
Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us.
"The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"
Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/s
Now, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.
Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.
Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921
NGC 4921 is a barred spiral galaxy in the Coma Cluster, located in the constellation Coma Berenices. It is about 320 million light-years from Earth.
So, based on the expansion rate, it should move away at:
75 * 320/3 = 8,000 Km/sec
Surprizingly, it only moves at 5,482 km/s[2]
So, if the expansion rate is correct, than this galaxy is moving against the space expansion in our direction at almost 2,500 Km/sec.
The expansion theory is working only in expanding the volume of the space/Universe. Therefore, it can only increase the distance between galaxies.
If that theory was correct, it was not expected to see any galaxy that contradicts the expansion rate so dramatically.
3.
Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLY
So, if that is correct, than the volume of the universe is increasing by 8 every 1200 years.
Therefore, the density of our universe should be reduce by 8 every 1200 Years.
This must have severe impact on every aspect including the CMB.
This is something that we had to verify by observation in just few years.

With regards to the CMB:
I'm still waiting for your answers about the CMB:

1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe
2. How could it be that a BBR is created by a Bang (even if we call it big bang)? Please offer valid explanation for that!!!
3. How "a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation" could stay in the open space for more than 13.8BY, while I have offered an article from wiki that radiation should cross the space at the speed of light.
4. Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point? Why we do not calculate the radiation amplitude by "inverse-square law"
Please remember, it was stated at wiki:
"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
If you claim that time represents distance, than we are currently moving away from the singularity point of the Big bang at almost the speed of light. However, as the radiation is also moving at the speed of light, than how could it be that we get any radiation from that Big Bang that took place 13.8 BY ago?
5. If the universe is finite, than how could it be that we see the same CMB temp in all directions?
6. How the CMB could carry a BBR while there are no walls around our finite Universe.
Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere. Without a cover for our finite Universe, there is no way to keep a BBR in our universe for so long time.

Hence, without real answers for all of those questions, it is clear that our scientists have totally failed in the burden of proof as they can't provide sufficient warrant for their position...
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 04:33:06
Some more point about the CMB and BBT:
CMB

Let me explain why the BBT wouldn't be able to generate the CMB that we see today:
1. Bang - A bang by itself can't generate any black body radiation. We should all agree with that. Actually even our scientists do not claim for it. They say that the CMB radiation took place during the "time of photon decoupling"  in the recombination epoch. It took place when the temperature of the universe drops below 3000 K or so, when the Universe is ~ 200,000 years old,
Please see some information in order to justify that statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling."
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr222/Cosmo/Early/recomb.html
When the temperature of the universe drops below 3000 K or so, when the Universe is ~ 200,000 years old, the electrons and nuclei combine to form atoms. No free electrons are running around, so photons can free stream and matter decouples from radiation. This is a fundamentally important time in the Universe's history: called the epoch of recombination. The Universe becomes transparent, we see it as the microwave background, and structure can start to form...

However, by that time our yong universe was already long after the inflation time and deep into the expantion. Therefore, at that time (200,000 years after the Big Bang) it was already expanding at almost the speed of light. Therefore, it acts as a container that its walls are moving away at the speed of light.
In this condition, there is no way to generate any sort of Black body radiation.
In order to set a Black body radiation we must have a back body radiator as: cavity, cellar Oven or container.
The radiation must bounces around inside the back body radiator to form the black body radiation.
As I have already explained, by the time that the CM had been created, the universe was already expanding at the speed of light. Therefore, the radiation that was created due to the  photon decoupling could not bounce back from the "walls of the early Universe (due to the expansion of the Universe), therefore, technically they couldn't create any BBR.

Therefore, there is a severe contradiction in the BB theory.
In one hand it is stated that the "expansion" have set the photon decoupling process:
"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since.... since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time."
However that same expansion also have killed any possibility for BBR.
Therefore, there must be a Fatal error in the BBT.
This is actually just element why the CMB that we see today can't be a created by the BBT.
So let me summarize few key points:
1. Our universe has no walls around it. This is a pure fiction. Our scientists do not claim for that and even in the BT they do not discuss about it. Therefore, at any given moment the expended Universe couldn't be considered as a black body radiator.
2.  "time of photon decoupling"  - that was almost a brief moment in the whole universe process. If you wish to believe that this exactly brief moment could continue to ring in our Universe forever and ever, you are dreaming.
Why the Bang itself isn't ringing? It has much more power and energy that this "poor" photon decoupling process.
So, this is just a fiction. It is just so unrealistic to take a brief moment in the life process of our Universe and claim that a specific moment could continue to ring forever.
3. Radiation - How could we get any sort of radiation from that time? We know that the radiation is moving at the speed of light. The Universe is also expanding at the speed of light. So, even if there was were walls all around our Universe, that radiation from the "photon decoupling time" can't technically bounce back to us from the walls of the expanding universe. Therefore, there is no way to get this radiation even if there was a constant source of that photon decoupling process from day one of the Universe.
3. Same CMB Radiation from all directions - Let's assume that somehow the Photon rings forever and ever. Let's also assume that somehow our universe has some imaginary walls all around. Lets also assume that although the photon is moving at the same speed of light at those imaginary walls than somehow some of the photons cloud bounced back from those walls. Let's also assume that due to some "abra cadabra" they have got their BBR.
However, based on simple physics law, we should get the amplitude based on the distance from those imaginary walls. We are clearly not at the center of the Universe. So, how could it be that we get exactly the same amplitude from all directions?
4. Red Shift - Any physics law is based on the idea that Red shift should gives a clear indication for a distance from the source of point. You have taken that z=1100 at the CMB and translate it to time from the photon decoupling process. You have totally ignored the distance and the way that the photon had to cross from its creation till the moment that it arrived to us.

Conclusion
The assumption that the CMB is due to the photon decoupling process in the BBT is a clear fiction. The CMB is due to our current Universe. It proves that our universe is Infinite.
However, you don't want to accept my explanation that is based on clear physics law. Instead you hang on that none relevant idea of photon decoupling process.
Ok



BBT violation

Based on the BBT, the process starts from "initial state of very high density and high temperature". So, this "initial state of very high density and high temperature" includes all the energy that is needed to create new mass in the entire Universe including dark energy and dark matter, inflation, expansion
So, somehow, at an instant moment the whole energy of the entire Universe had been given to set our entire universe by one single Big Bang.
So, the contradictions are as follow:
1. Energy source for the BBT:
   What is the source for "high density and high temperature"?
   What does it mean high density? density of what? density of matter or density of energy?
   How that kind of high density and temperature had been created?
   If you can't show the source of energy, than there is a severe violation of thermodynamics law.
   
2. Inflation & Expansion in space -
Is it feasible to set an inflation and expansion in space by any sort of bang?
What kind of physics law can accept the idea of expansion in space due to that bang?
Did we ever try to calculate the energy that is needed to set that kind of activity?

3. Particle creation: ""After its initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms."
Can you please show the physics law that can permit the creation of particles from pure energy as a bang?
It seems that our scientists know for sure that there is no physics law that can accept the idea of creating mass from a bang.
Therefore, they don't claim for that. They only say that there was a bang and than "the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles"
However, we know that the only way to create new particles is by magnetic transformation of energy to real particles/mass in magnetic acceleration. No other process in the whole universe can set even tinny particle without that magnetic transformation. Our scientists do not claim that a magnetic accelerator had been created after the bang. Therefore, how can the estimate that just by cooling the Universe particles could be created from the high energy?

4. Particle pair creation and Annihilation
Let's assume that somehow there was a creation of partials. However, particles should be created in a pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum.["
However, without any ability to separate between the pair at the moment of creation, than those new born particle pair should be eliminated instantly at the same moment of their creation by the following process:
Annihilation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Examples
In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons.[1"
The only force that can split between the particle pair is Lorenz force that is based on magnetic field. Without any source for magnetic field in the BBT activity, no particle could be survived due to annihilation process.

5. Mean Lifetime for Particle Decay
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/meanlif.html
"The decay of particles is commonly expressed in terms of half-life, decay constant or mean lifetime. The probability for decay can be expressed as a distribution function"
So, any new created particle has a "probability for decay". the time between the creation of particle in the BBT to the time of Atom creation is very critical. If you wait too long, you have lost all the new created particles.

6. Atom creation - The Atom creation took place about  380,000 years after the Big Bang. That might be too long for any particle to survive. However, let's assume that somehow some particles had left till this moment of time.
However, how can the BBT converts those survived particles to real Atoms? Please remember that due to the inflation and space expansion, the space itself is increasing at Ultra high velocity. so, the particles almost doesn't move. It is the space itself that is increasing dramatically. That cause a severe problem. How the particles can meet each other in order to set a new Atom? Without any possibility to set a contact between particles and without any magnetic field how any new atom could be created?

6. Dark matter and dark energy - Somehow it seems that our scientists have no clue about the dark matter and dark energy although they includes more than 90 % of the total energy in the Universe. There is no info how that "dark" had been created by the BBT.

Conclusions:
Sorry, the whole process of Atoms creation including Dark energy and dark matter by the BBT is just unrealistic.
However, Theory D offers a real activity to create new atoms and fully meets any physics law including the thermodynamics...
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2020 11:50:55
With regards to the CMB:
I'm still waiting for your answers about the CMB:
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
Am I correct in that?
If so, please go and learn about spectroscopy.
Once you have the grounding I will be able to explain the answer to your question- in fact, I probably won't need to because you will work it out for yourself.
It's to do with selection rules.
The very simplistic answer is that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 13:36:00
assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.

So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D. Therefore, you are using the flag of relativity in order to reject the main idea in theory D that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.
You wish to prove that this phenomenon contradicts the reality.
However, our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.

https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."

That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.
Actually, if we go back on time, when the BBT had been offered, no one really anticipate that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light. I assume that even Einstein didn't know about it when he came with his relativity theory.
This observation was a big surprise to the science community at that time.
So, I claim that it is not my task to explain the problem between the observations to the relativity formula.
I can just assume that if Einstein knew it on time, he would probably reconsider the whole issue of relativity.
In any case, I have estimated that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light and we have clear observation that fully supports this assumption.
Therefore, so far you couldn't offer any single issue that could reject Theory D, while I have offered almost unlimited problems in the BBT.
Each one of them knocks down the fiction that is called BBT.
However, as you like Einstein and you have offer his relativity, let me use his other formula:

E = mc^2

We all know that the Sun loses about 5.5 million tonnes of mass every second,
Try to calculate the energy in that mass.
Now, try to estimate how many stars there are just in our galaxy. Then add to that all the stars in the observable Universe.
Figure out the total energy that is needed for those stars to burn in just one second.
Now, try to estimate the total mass in out observable Universe.  Add to that all the dark matter and dark energy.
Try to convert this mass into energy
So, what is the source of energy for the BBT?.
Our scientists are fully aware that electromagnetic field is needed in order to set even a tinny particle
Therefore, the assumption that a bang could generate particles or Atoms without magnetic field is a pure fiction.
After all of that you wish that this bang could also start in an aria without any space.
Sorry, a Universe without space can't be considered as a universe.
In any case, somehow that early Universe without space was very dense and hot.
So, how could it be so hot while it has no space?
If it had some space than how could we claim that the time was not ticking.
If it had time than there is no possibility to get an infinite energy....
What kind of energy could create a space?
How any sort of space could expand due to a bang?
If the bang had created some space in the Universe, than this space should  create distortion in the early Universe.
Therefore, how can you claim that the Universe was homogenous and isotropic?
Without  homogenous and isotropic you can set the BBT in the garbage of history.
The first transient of the bang should kill the Homogenous and isotropic and kills with it the BBT.
If there was a bang, then this bang should create singularity. The outcome is a BH.
So, all the energy in that Big Bang should collapse at the first moment into a black hole without any possibility for escaping.
If there was any sort of expansion in space or inflation, it would probably kill the possibility to form any star.
Therefore, the BBT contradicts almost any law of science.
If you wish to believe in this imagination - you are more than welcome.

The very simplistic answer is that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe
You claim that the CMBR is the wrong colour to be today's universe as in your imagination you see a comact finite Universe.
Our Universe is Infinite. The CMBR perfectly meets our current infinite Universe.
It is actually a key indication that our Universe is infinite.
I have already deeply explained it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2020 14:24:27
So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D.

Yes, we did.
Reality contradicts this
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.


Also, you went on a rant about relativity.
I was asking about your understanding of spectroscopy.
You forgot to answer, so here's the question again.


I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
Am I correct in that?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 25/04/2020 14:27:28
If you both claim that you know science better than me, than why don't you answer the following questions with regards to the Expansion rate impact, CMB and BBT?
1.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:34:03
Let's try to set a simple calculation:
If a galaxy is located at a distance of 60 LY away from us
What is the direct impact due to the space expansion?
The answer is:
We know that every 3 MLY the expansion rate is 75m/s
Therefore, due to the expansion itself, that galaxy should move away from each other at velocity of:
75 * 60/3 = 1,500 Km/s
If I understand it correctly, our scientists claim that the galaxies are not moving in space. Only the space expansion takes them away from us.
So, let's look on real galaxy: Messier 90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_90
This galaxy is located at a distance of  58.7 ± 2.8 Mly (18.00 ± 0.86 Mpc)
Let's assume that the distance is 60 MLY
Therefore, due to space expansion it should move away at 1,500 Km/s
However, surprisingly it is actually moving directly to us.
"The spectrum of Messier 90 is blueshifted, which indicates that it is moving towards the Earth"
Its Red shift is -0.000784 ± 0.000013[2] Which means that it is actually moving in our direction at Galactocentric velocity of 282 ± 4[2] km/s
Now, this by itself is a sever contradiction to the space expansion.
Never the less, I'm quite sure that our "puzzled" scientists have already found a "brilliant" explanation in order to keep the "space expansion" in life.
Would you kindly share with me what could be that explanation?
2.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:21:14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4921
NGC 4921 is a barred spiral galaxy in the Coma Cluster, located in the constellation Coma Berenices. It is about 320 million light-years from Earth.
So, based on the expansion rate, it should move away at:
75 * 320/3 = 8,000 Km/sec
Surprizingly, it only moves at 5,482 km/s[2]
So, if the expansion rate is correct, than this galaxy is moving against the space expansion in our direction at almost 2,500 Km/sec.
The expansion theory is working only in expanding the volume of the space/Universe. Therefore, it can only increase the distance between galaxies.
If that theory was correct, it was not expected to see any galaxy that contradicts the expansion rate so dramatically.
I have answered this before but I guess you didn't understand.  There is proper motion and there is recession velocity (expansion).  If there is proper motion towards us then the measured recession velocity will be lower by that amount.  Hopefully you will understand this time.
3.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:21:14
Based on my calculation, every 1200 years any 3x3x3xMly is increasing to 6x6x6 MLY
So, if that is correct, than the volume of the universe is increasing by 8 every 1200 years.
Therefore, the density of our universe should be reduce by 8 every 1200 Years.
This must have severe impact on every aspect including the CMB.
This is something that we had to verify by observation in just few years.
Really, we could see galaxies changing position or something?  Let's see if that makes sense.
Assume a galaxy is 1 megaparsec away from us and not bound to us at all.
1 megaparsec is 3.1 x 10^19 km.
The expansion rate at that distance is 75 km/s.  After 5 years the the expansion will have moved the galaxy 1.2 x 10^10 km.
So the galaxy was originally 3.1 x 10^19 km after 5 years it will be 3.1000000012 x 10^19 km.  I don't think that would be easy to see.

1. Why the CMB is not the radiation of our current Universe
2. How could it be that a BBR is created by a Bang (even if we call it big bang)? Please offer valid explanation for that!!!
3. How "a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation" could stay in the open space for more than 13.8BY, while I have offered an article from wiki that radiation should cross the space at the speed of light.
4. Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point? Why we do not calculate the radiation amplitude by "inverse-square law"
Please remember, it was stated at wiki:
"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."
If you claim that time represents distance, than we are currently moving away from the singularity point of the Big bang at almost the speed of light. However, as the radiation is also moving at the speed of light, than how could it be that we get any radiation from that Big Bang that took place 13.8 BY ago?
5. If the universe is finite, than how could it be that we see the same CMB temp in all directions?
6. How the CMB could carry a BBR while there are no walls around our finite Universe.
Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere. Without a cover for our finite Universe, there is no way to keep a BBR in our universe for so long time.

Hence, without real answers for all of those questions, it is clear that our scientists have totally failed in the burden of proof as they can't provide sufficient warrant for their position...
1.  There is no mechanism in the current universe that would cause a smooth distribution of microwave radiation all at the same wavelength.
2.  Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.
3.  Where would it go?  Thanks for the article that says light moves at the speed of light...
4.  There is no source point.  The inverse square law does not apply.  I forget sometimes, how little you know about this subject.
5.  Because the expansion of space has increased the wavelength of the original radiation.
6.  What do walls have to do with anything?
I just have highlight what you wrote because it is SO wrong:
Please remember it was clearly stated in wiki that a BBR can only be created at a cavity or photosphere.
Your ready comprehension is awful.
How do you explain the fact that you see BBR when the burner on you stove is red hot??

You are hopeless!  Did it ever occur to you that you should learn a little bit about a subject before you try to make a hypothesis about that subject.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 15:39:50
Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.
Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.
There is no source point.  The inverse square law does not apply.
Yes there is. You claim that the Universe was dense and hot. So if you take the calculation from the moment of the Recombination, than you have to verify  the volume (or distance) from that time.
The energy of the radiation must be directly connected to the Volume of the Universe and not just to its redshift value.
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
If the energy at the first sigment was 3,000K, than by increasing the Volume by 88M the density and temperature should fall to:
3,000 /88M = 0.000034 K
However, we clearly monitor 2.7K.
This by itself should kick down the BBT.
The red shift gives an indication for a distance.
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
Try to use it and see that even in this case the temp should fall down almost to zero.
The 2.7K is feasible ONLY for infinite Universe.
The Value of 1089 in the redshift indicates that the contribution of the energy in the CMB is coming mainly from a sphere of about 45 BLY.
We can't get significant energy from galaxies that are located too far away from that sphere. However, the impact of the infinite galaxies up to the infinity set the BBR.
If we could run a simulation for Infinite Universe based on the current density we should get exactly the same CMB that we see today
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2020 15:59:41
Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.
Prove it.
Yes there is.
What is it then?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 25/04/2020 17:04:58
Your calculation of the current CMB level it totally wrong.
That of course is not based on evidence, it is based on your profound ignorance of astrophysics.
Yes there is. You claim that the Universe was dense and hot.
Just to be clear these, are not my claims.  These are the findings of physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.  I have looked at the evidence and it seems very compelling.
So if you take the calculation from the moment of the Recombination, than you have to verify  the volume (or distance) from that time.
Nope.  The universe did not expand away from some point in space, every point in space expanded, there was no central point, so there was no mythical point source.
My bet is this concept is way over your head.
 
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
It is not surprising that you would make such an egregious error considering your your rudimentary understanding of cosmology.
This by itself should kick down the BBT.
Wrong.
The red shift gives an indication for a distance.
Holy crap!! You said something correct!!!!
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
Now we are back to ignorance on display.  No you are wrong again.
Try to use it and see that even in this case the temp should fall down almost to zero.
The 2.7K is feasible ONLY for infinite Universe.
The Value of 1089 in the redshift indicates that the contribution of the energy in the CMB is coming mainly from a sphere of about 45 BLY.
We can't get significant energy from galaxies that are located too far away from that sphere. However, the impact of the infinite galaxies up to the infinity set the BBR.
If we could run a simulation for Infinite Universe based on the current density we should get exactly the same CMB that we see today
This is just a series of ignorant statements.

It is so embarrassing, it is like you are jumping up and down waving your arms and saying look how ignorant I am!!!

Let me assure you we can all see that just fine.....
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 19:38:32
The universe did not expand away from some point in space, every point in space expanded, there was no central point, so there was no mythical point source.
My bet is this concept is way over your head.
Well, you have to take a decision
You can't just hold the stick in both sides..
You claim specifically that "every point in space expanded"
However, our scientists claim that there was no space before the bang, so how could you expand every point in space while the space is missing?
If you claim that there was space before the bang than this is a severe violation of the BBT starting point.
In any case, let's assume that there was space.
If there was a space and no central point, than any point in that space should be considered as a central point.
So, there are two options:
1. The space is infinite - In this case in order to fulfill the "no central point" the Space/universe must be infinite.
2. The space is finite and compact - In this case, there must be a central point - the compact/finite space itself in the infinite universe.
Actually there is a clear contradiction between finite universe to "no central point"
If you claim that our current Universe is finite, than if we go back in time we have to minimize its space. Therefore, at some point you have to get to a central point somewhere in the Universe.
If you still think that a finite Universe could have "no central point", than would you kindly explain it.

Just to be clear these, are not my claims.  These are the findings of physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.  I have looked at the evidence and it seems very compelling.
Sorry, we discuss science.
If you claim that the Universe today is finite, while you also claim that its space had been expanded dramatically in the last 13.8 BY, than somehow you have to start with a compact space/Universe.
You claim that:
Recombination occurred when the universe was about 380000 years old and the temperature was about 3000K.
So, at the recombination time the universe was much compact than our time.
That compact universe/space has a volume. In that limited volume the whole mass/energy of the universe was concentrated at very high density. This density sets the temperature of the radiation/energy to 3000K.
You don't have to be physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists to understand that if you increase the volume you directly decrease the density. If you decrease the density you also decrease the temp radiation/energy proportionally.
I have found that every 1200 years the volume of the Universe is increasing by 8.
The outcome is direct decreasing in the density by 8 and therefore the temp must be dropped also by 8.
Our physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists can't just change the law of science according their wishful thinking.
Would you kindly show me on which law in physics they have based their calculation in order to extract the temp from the redshift?
Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?
Sorry - the temp must be a direct outcome of density or distance.
Any other calculation is a pure fiction even if it is made by very smart physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:39:50
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
It is not surprising that you would make such an egregious error considering your rudimentary understanding of cosmology.
If you think that I have an error, than would you kindly set the calculation by yourself or find an article with the relevant calculation.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:39:50
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
Now we are back to ignorance on display.  No you are wrong again.
You can't just claim that the physics books/law are based on ignorance.
If you wish I can offer you those physics books /law of how to calculate the radiation/energy due to distance/volume.
You can't just claim that I'm wrong without backup yourself with a clear physics law.
Even those 100,000 physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists must base their calculations on physics law.
So please, show me the physics law of their unrealistic calculation.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/04/2020 20:59:24
If you think that I have an error, than would you kindly set the calculation by yourself or find an article with the relevant calculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Relationship_to_the_Big_Bang
Did you not think you should read, at least the wiki page, about the BB and CMB before trying to tell everyone that it's wrong?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 25/04/2020 22:15:22
Well, you have to take a decision
I guess you did not notice that I believe that the BBT is the best theory to explain what we observe in the universe.
You can't just hold the stick in both sides..
What are you talking about?
You claim specifically that "every point in space expanded"
However, our scientists claim that there was no space before the bang, so how could you expand every point in space while the space is missing?
I don't know who 'your' scientist are, but the ones I know of do not know anything about what was before the big bang.  Many would say asking what was before the big bang is a silly question.
In any case, let's assume that there was space.
If there was a space and no central point, than any point in that space should be considered as a central point.
So, there are two options:
1. The space is infinite - In this case in order to fulfill the "no central point" the Space/universe must be infinite.
2. The space is finite and compact - In this case, there must be a central point - the compact/finite space itself in the infinite universe.
Seriously?  Are you that clueless??  There is a 3rd possibility, you know the BBT.  That is the one I think is right, good old number 3.  See the BBT (that thing you know all about and disagree with) clearly says that every point in space is expanding and there is no center to the universe.
Actually there is a clear contradiction between finite universe to "no central point"
Actually there isn't.  It really isn't that hard, the universe isn't expanding into anything and every point in space is expanding.  Look up the big bang on wiki if you would like to learn about that thing you don't like.
So, at the recombination time the universe was much compact than our time.
Very good that is correct.
That compact universe/space has a volume.
Two correct statements in a row, you are on a roll.
You don't have to be physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists to understand that if you increase the volume you directly decrease the density. If you decrease the density you also decrease the temp radiation/energy proportionally.
You are knocking it out of the park this is all correct!

Well this is fun but I gotta go grab dinner.  This has been quite humorous, I will be back.

Edit:  misread the a part and edited my answer.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 25/04/2020 23:04:46
You are hopeless!

As I know all too well. He had a prior thread called "How gravity works in spiral galaxy?" where he and I discussed this exact same "theory" of his from last March to last December. I made absolutely no progress towards teaching him the error of his ways. If you plan on sticking this out, you're in it for a long haul.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 26/04/2020 00:17:59
You are hopeless!

As I know all too well. He had a prior thread called "How gravity works in spiral galaxy?" where he and I discussed this exact same "theory" of his from last March to last December. I made absolutely no progress towards teaching him the error of his ways. If you plan on sticking this out, you're in it for a long haul.
There is no way I'm in it for the long haul, I find his combination of ignorance and arrogance very frustrating.  But I will play along for a while longer. :)
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 26/04/2020 02:26:27
I have found that every 1200 years the volume of the Universe is increasing by 8.
As I have said that is based on the simple minded belief that the expansion rate is constant - it isn't.  That was some really swell arithmetic but the math will be a bit more complicated to give a meaningful answer.
Our physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists can't just change the law of science according their wishful thinking.
Always keep in mind that your inability to understand a concept does not mean the concept is wrong it only means you cannot understand it.
Would you kindly show me on which law in physics they have based their calculation in order to extract the temp from the redshift?
That makes no sense, a redshift can't have a temperature.  I think you mean CMB not redshift.  The temperature is found by the wavelength of the radiation.  The wavelength corresponds to the black body radiation from a 2.73 K body.  Easy!
Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?
What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift?  What in the hell would that tell you?
Sorry - the temp must be a direct outcome of density or distance.
Any other calculation is a pure fiction even if it is made by very smart physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists.
What temperature?  The CMB black body temperature?  No, distance or density isn't what made the BBR of the universe go from 3000 K to 2.73 K.  I will let you in on a secret it was expansion.  Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K.
You can't just claim that the physics books/law are based on ignorance.
No the books are fine it is your ignorance of what they say is the problem.
If you wish I can offer you those physics books /law of how to calculate the radiation/energy due to distance/volume.
No need to, I have done the calculations.  You cannot even understand what they are talking about let alone do the calculations!
You can't just claim that I'm wrong without backup yourself with a clear physics law.
OK, why would I call you ignorant when you said this:
If you insist to verify the energy due to the distance (redshift), than you should know the formula of the inverse square law radiation reduction.
The reason that statement is ignorant is because the inverse square law has nothing to do with red shift!  The inverse square law tells you how the intensity of light from a point source will decrease with distance, it tells you nothing about the red shift.
Even those 100,000 physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists must base their calculations on physics law.
So please, show me the physics law of their unrealistic calculation.
I told you earlier that the wavelength of the CMB was measured and it corresponded to 2.73 K.  Did you also know as early as 1948, that based on the BBT, there should be a microwave radiation found from when the universe became transparent.  In 1965 these microwaves (CMB) were discovered just as the BBT had predicted.  Pretty cool, huh?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/04/2020 04:05:30
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:38:32
Can you please show me how they have got to that unbelievable idea of dividing the 3000k temp by the value of the current redshift?
What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift?  What in the hell would that tell you?

Good Morning!!!
Didn't you have a chance to read the explanation at wiki?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
 When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.26 eV,[50] which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen.[51]

Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1100[52] due to the expansion of the universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, causing them to decrease in energy. The temperature of this radiation stays inversely proportional to a parameter that describes the relative expansion of the universe over time, known as the scale length. The temperature Tr of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.2348 meV):[53]"

So
T (during recombination time) /Redshift =
3000K/1089 = 2.7548K

I fully agree with you:

What crazy person would divide temperature by redshift?
The person/scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists that did it must be crazy.
This isn't science.
It is a science fiction.
The BBT is based on imaginary Physics law that had been specifically developed for that theory.
Therefore, if you use imaginary physics law, then you can fly without wings and also believe in the imagination that is called BBT.
In that imagination everything is possible
You can have Universe without space or space without universe.
You can have a dense and high temp without Universe or space
You can hold the time if you wish.
You can get for free infinite energy at a brief of a moment
You can set a bang with "no central point" without any need for space or universe.
You can convert that imagination energy into real particles atoms and even stars and galaxies without any need for electromagnetic.
You can get dark matter wherever is needed and at any requested complex density to hold your spiral galaxy in place.
You can also get unlimited dark energy to boost the far away galaxies.
No need for any physics books /law. They will make the calculation for you - "No need to, I have done the calculations."
You can also get free of charge an expansion in space - "Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K"
Unfortunately, you didn't ask for expansion in time, therefore we can't deliver this feature for you at this moment.
However, if you dare to criticize that wonderful BBT imagination than - "it is your ignorance of what they say is the problem"
So all you need is to believe in the BBT
So simple request.

Sorry to destroy your wonderful dream/imagination.
However, it's a time to walk up. You can't sleep for more than 70 years. It's already noon time. Please walk up.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/04/2020 06:19:34
Sometimes I wonder why do I need that kind of "fight"
No one really appreciate my message. No one pays my celery for the time that I invest in this issue.
On the contrary, you all highlight my Poor knowledge and ignorant.
So why do I need to walk you up from your wonderful dream.
Look at those people who dare to raise their voices against the mainstream
Darwin had been totally neglected from its society.
Galileo had been set in prison for claiming that we are not the center of the Universe.
Just think about it - how could he dare for that claim? Shame on him!!!
So, why they have both decided to go against the main stream at their time and totally be ejected from their society.

I wonder if I need to continue or just let you continue with your wonderful dream.
However, if one day you would walk up and look for the ultimate theory for our universe, than please read again this thread.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 26/04/2020 06:31:16
Look at those people who dare to raise their voices against the mainstream
Darwin had been totally neglected from its society.
Galileo had been set in prison for claiming that we are not the center of the Universe.
Just think about it - how could he dare for that claim? Shame on him!!!
So, why they have both decided to go against the main stream at their time and totally be ejected from their society.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/04/2020 09:13:19
You can have Universe without space or space without universe.
You can have a dense and high temp without Universe or space
You can hold the time if you wish.
You can get for free infinite energy at a brief of a moment
You can set a bang with "no central point" without any need for space or universe.
You can convert that imagination energy into real particles atoms and even stars and galaxies without any need for electromagnetic.
You can get dark matter wherever is needed and at any requested complex density to hold your spiral galaxy in place.
You can also get unlimited dark energy to boost the far away galaxies.
No need for any physics books /law. They will make the calculation for you - "No need to, I have done the calculations."
You can also get free of charge an expansion in space - "Expansion increased the wavelength of that first burst of BBR when the universe became transparent, to this low energy microwave radiation that corresponds to a body at 2.7 K"
Nobody said you could.
Either that's a poorly constructed strawman attack or it's time you actually read the science.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/04/2020 09:14:41
No one really appreciate my message.
Try sending a message which is not obviously wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 26/04/2020 12:56:12
T (during recombination time) /Redshift =
3000K/1089 = 2.7548K
Where did you get this from:  redshift = 1089?

Edit to add:  I see it is 'z'.

Z= (wavelength[now]-wavelength[org])/wavelength[org]

I was wrong on this point.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Halc on 26/04/2020 13:38:09
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
Another random number pulled out of your arse it seems.  Off by 7 orders of magnitude if based on actual empirical measurements.

Quote
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
The math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 811,000,000, not 8 * 11M.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/04/2020 14:19:00
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 25/04/2020 15:39:50
I have already found that based on the rate expansion, every 1200 years the Universe increases it volume by 8.
Another random number pulled out of your arse it seems.  Off by 7 orders of magnitude if based on actual empirical measurements.

Thanks Halc
It should be 12,000 Y instead of 1200 Y
Please see the following calculation:

Let's look again in the following explanation about the expansion:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."

Therefore, the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
1 Day = 86400 Seconds
In one day the expansion rate is 75 x 86,400 = 6,480,000 km
1 Year = 365 days
In 1,000 years = 365 10^3 days. So, in one 1,000 years the expansion is: 6,480,000 * 365 *10^3 = 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km
We know that 1 Light Year = 9.4605E+12 Kilometers
We also know that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light year.
Therefore, 3 Million LY means
9.4605 10^12 * 3 = 28.3815 10^12 km
So, in order for the expansion to multiply the size 3LY, we need:
1,000 year * 28.3815 10^12 km / 2.3652 * 10 ^12 km= 12,000 Years
Hence, 12,000 years are needed for the expansion to multiply the distance of two nearby galaxies from 3Light years to 6 Light years.
So, in 12,000 years a Volume of the 3x3x3 = 27 Ly cube had been increased to 6x6x6 = 216 ly
Therefore, in every 12,000 years the volume of our space is increasing by 6^3/ 3^3 = 3^2 = 8
So, let's see the meaning of this expansion:

Quote
Quote
If we just consider 13BY after the Recombination, than there are about 11,000,000 segments of 1,200 years
So, the universe had increased its volume by 88M:
11,000,000 * 8 = 88,000,000
The math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 8^11,000,000, not 8 * 11M.

Thanks again
You are absolutely correct with regards to Volume of a cube.

Let's verify a Cube:
First expansion - 3x3x3 is expanding to 6x6x6 which means 6^3 /3^3 = 2^3 = 8^1 times 3x3x3 Ly
Second expansion is: 6x6x6 is expanding to 12x12x12 which means 12^3 /3^3 = 4^3 = 64 = 8^2 times 3x3x3 Ly
Third expansion is : 12x12x12 is expanding to 24x24x24 which means 24^3 / 3^3  =8^3 times 3x3x3 Ly
Expansion No. 4 is: 48x48x48 which means 48^3 / 3^3 = 16^3 = 8^4 times 3x3x3 Ly
So, the formula is: 8^n
As n = 11,000,000
Therefore if we start from a cube of 3x3x3 Ly the minimal size of the Volume after 11,00,000 should be
8^11,000,000 multiply by 3x3x3 LY

However, if we discuss on a direct line (or radius) than:
3 Ly Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3Ly
6 Ly increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3Ly
12 Ly increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3Ly

So the formula for the radius is
3LY * 2^n
If n = 11,000,000, The radius is 3 * 2^11,000,000 Ly =
If you try to run that number you get Infinity.
Let's verify what is the value n in order to set a Universe with a radius of 15 BLY
3 * 2^n LY = 15BLY = 15 * 10^9 Y
2^n = 5 10^9

If n = 32
2^32 = 4.2949673×10^9

Therefore, after only 32 times we already get a radius of almost 13BLY, while after 33 times the radius of the Universe is already: 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.

Hence, based on the expansion rate of the BBT, after only 12,000 x 33 = 396,000 years, a radius of 3Ly should be expanded to 25.74 BLy.

That proves that something must be wrong.
If my calculation is correct, than there must be an error in the BBT.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 03:32:31
That proves that something must be wrong.
Clearly.
If my calculation is correct, than there must be an error in the BBT.
Then obviously your calculation is wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 05:32:09
Then obviously your calculation is wrong.
Are you sure about it?
Did you ever tried to understand the real meaning of the expansion rate?
So, please, would you kindly show where is the error in my calculation?
Let's start with the following explanation:
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
"thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."
So, I hope that we all agree that the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years?
If so,
1 Year = 31556926 Seconds?
Therefore, 75Km/sec = 31556926* 75 =  2,366,769,450 Km/y = 2.366 * 10 ^9 km/year

One light year by wiki: "The light-year is a unit of length used to express astronomical distances and measures about 9.46 trillion kilometers (9.46 x 10^12 km)"
So do you agree that 3Ly = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^12 Km?

How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3LY?
28.38 * 10^12 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11,991 years
Let's assume that 11,991 years is almost 12,000 Years.

As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than do you agree that every 12,000 years each segment of 3LY is actually double its size?

Therefore, the formula for the radius should be as follow"
After the first 12,000 years interval time, the first 3 Ly Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3Ly
After the second 12,000 years interval time,  a distance of 6 Ly increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3Ly
After the third 12,000 years interval time, a distance of 12 Ly increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3Ly
..
After the n times 12,000 years interval time, a distance of 3*2^(n-1) increases to 3*2^n Ly

Therefore, do you agree that if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe was only 3LY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n Ly
The formula for the time is: T (n) =  n x 12,000 Years.

After n =33
Radius (n=33) = 3 * 2^n Ly = 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.
T (time after n=33) = 12,000 * 33 = 396,000 Years

Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2020 06:22:55
Out of curiosity, Dave, if you had ten actual physicists (you know, people whose job it is to know this kind of stuff) tell you that your understanding of concepts like conservation of energy, universal expansion and the theory of relativity was all flawed, would you actually believe them or would you think that those ten physicists are deluded while you were the correct one? Would it even so much as give you pause and make you reconsider your understanding? If it was one hundred different physicists from around the world saying it, would it make any difference to you?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 08:40:36
Out of curiosity, Dave, if you had ten actual physicists (you know, people whose job it is to know this kind of stuff) tell you that your understanding of concepts like conservation of energy, universal expansion and the theory of relativity was all flawed, would you actually believe them or would you think that those ten physicists are deluded while you were the correct one? Would it even so much as give you pause and make you reconsider your understanding? If it was one hundred different physicists from around the world saying it, would it make any difference to you?
Thanks for this question
I have high appreciation for any person, scientist, physicist, astronomer or astrophysicist.
However, you can't just replace real science by believing.
Let me answer by another question:
If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?
My boss used to say, the proof is in the pudding.
Therefore, anyone who believes in science must set his own calculation and verify if we should accept the "main stream".
How can we follow in the path that our scientists have drawn while we clearly see that they are so puzzled on almost every new discovery?
In engineering there is no room for puzzled theory.
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.
However, it seems that when it comes to astronomy, the sky is the limit.
Why do we need to except any sort of theory just because 100,000 astronomers support it?
Sorry, I don't see myself as part of the herd.
Do you know that the Norwegian lemmings are not so stupid.
However, when overcrowding becomes an issue, they will run for the sea and throwing themselves off cliffs.
So, I don't see myself as part of those Norwegian lemmings herd.
If I was a Norwegian lemming, and see that over than 100,000 clever Norwegian lemmings are running for the sea I will surely not join them.
So, if you all think that you should join the 100,000 herd, than it's your choice.
For me - I would base any theory ONLY on real physics law and observations.
On the first contradiction, I will set that theory at the garbage and start from zero.

The BBT had been set about 70 years ago. From that moment our scientists do whatever it takes to keep it alive. I'm quite sure that during those 70 years many young scientists have wondered if the BBT is real.
However, they know for sure that it is forbidden to go against the BBT. One negative word and they will be ejected out from this elite community and out of job.
I'm so happy that our engineering community do not share the same concept as our astronomers elite community.
70 years ago, a clever engineer came with an idea of the first transistor at Bell laboratory.
We are so lucky that our engineering community at that time didn't eject this young engineer from the community.
Based on his breakthrough idea, we have today the most high tech instruments.
Therefore, it is clear to me that if our science community were more open for new ideas/theory than they would surly found by now the correct explanation for our Universe.
However, as they do whatever it takes to eliminate any objection to the BBT, we are still located at the darkness.
At some point they would surly understand that the BBT is useless. So, how long arewe all going to stay in the darkness?
Look at yourself.
I personally have the highest appreciation for your knowledge and wisdom.
However, you are using all of this knowledge to protect the BBT.
You have never stopped for just one moment and ask yourself: could it be that there is an error in this theory?
Why is it?
Even if you don't like theory D, why don't you accept the key problematic issues in the BBT?
I have offered so many issues with the BBT. Why can't you see all the big holes in this theory?
What is your advice with regards to the expansion rate calculation which I have just offered?

Why do I need to set the walk up call for all of you?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 09:02:33
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.
Yes.
But you have not found a contradiction.
You have just misunderstood the underlying physics.
It does not help that you are sticking to a claim which is known to be false.
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.

You don't seem to have noticed the problems there.
One is about the size and age of the universe- which you are wrong about.
The other is this:
You say "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
Well, it isn't actually an indication of the size of the universe.
If we were in a very big box the walls of which were at about 2.7K we would see the same radiation in a finite universe.

So you  start your post with a a blatant flaw in logic.

You then compound that
"Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age"
Well, that's not a logical conclusion either.

So you start off by announcing loudly that you can not do simple logic.

That's not going to convince us that your post is worth reading, is it?



And I'm still waiting for you to answer this
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
Am I correct in that?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 10:30:49
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:40:36
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.
Yes.
But you have not found a contradiction.
Yes I have found many of them.
Let's start with the expansion rate. Would you try to answer the following contradiction?
Therefore, do you agree that if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe was only 3LY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n Ly
The formula for the time is: T (n) =  n x 12,000 Years.
After n =33
Radius (n=33) = 3 * 2^n Ly = 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.
T (time after n=33) = 12,000 * 33 = 396,000 Years
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?
You have just misunderstood the underlying physics.
If you assume that there is an error in my calculation, than please highlight this error.

You say "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
Well, it isn't actually an indication of the size of the universe.
Yes it is.
I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation.
I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR.
In order to understand that, you have to understand how BBR really works
If we were in a very big box the walls of which were at about 2.7K we would see the same radiation in a finite universe
If our Universe had isolated walls all around it, than it could carry a BBR even if it was finite.
However, in this case, its temp should be much higher than just 2.7K.
A box with isolated walls is an oven. A big box could set a very big oven. Try to set the sun in a very big oven and see the outcome.
Therefore, our universe can't be considered as a finite Universe with isolated walls or opaque.

The redshift in the CMB (which indicates a distance of 46BLY) is one more evidence for the minimal size of our universe.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer this
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity
Am I correct in that?
Well I have already answered.
So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D. Therefore, you are using the flag of relativity in order to reject the main idea in theory D that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.
You wish to prove that this phenomenon contradicts the reality.
However, our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.

https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."

That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.
Actually, if we go back on time, when the BBT had been offered, no one really anticipate that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light. I assume that even Einstein didn't know about it when he came with his relativity theory.
This observation was a big surprise to the science community at that time.
So, I claim that it is not my task to explain the problem between the observations to the relativity formula.
I can just assume that if Einstein knew it on time, he would probably reconsider the whole issue of relativity.
In any case, I have estimated that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light and we have clear observation that fully supports this assumption.
Therefore, so far you couldn't offer any single observation that could reject Theory D, while I have offered almost unlimited problems in the BBT.
Each one of them knocks down the fiction that is called BBT.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 12:23:38
Yes it is.
I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation.
I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR.
In order to understand that, you have to understand how BBR really works

"I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation."
Even if that's correct, it isn't relevant.

The thing you said
"Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
 was wrong.

Why do you think it is helpful to say that sort of thing.
I provided a reasonable counter example.

Either explain how a box with 2.7K walls would not look like the CMBR or accept that the CMBR does not prove that the universe is infinite.

Also accept that, because it doesn't; You are wrong.

That's all there   is to it here.
You keep on saying stuff even after it has been demonstrated that you are factually incorrect.


"I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR."
Should I take that as an answer to my question about your understanding of spectroscopy?
It also leads me to wonder if you think teh BB was actually a bang.
Do you understand that the term was originally intended as an insult?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 13:46:11
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?
Of course not.  How could 2 objects that have a recession velocity of 7.5 x 10^-5 km/s move apart 26 Bly in only 390,000 years?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 13:59:37
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:32:09
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?
Of course not.  How could 2 objects that have a recession velocity of 7.5 x 10^-5 km/s move apart 26 Bly in only 390,000 years?

Well, if you believe in the BBT and you also confirm that the expansion rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than this MUST be the outcome.
So, the answer is located in the 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
Each segment of 3 million light years, contributes 75Km/sec.

Actually it was a big surprise also for me.
So many thanks to Hlac for his clarification:
The math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 8^11,000,000, not 8 * 11M.
In any case, if you still disagree with my calculation or Halc clarification, than please try to set the calculation by yourself and get the same results.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 15:44:06
Well, if you believe in the BBT and you also confirm that the expansion rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than this MUST be the outcome.
So, the answer is located in the 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
Each segment of 3 million light years, contribute 75Km/sec.
I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years".  That means the following:
H = 74 km/s/Mparsec.  Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
Therefore your statement, "after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?", is obviously wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2020 16:33:49
If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?

You are misunderstanding my question. I'm not talking about physicists telling you that the Big Bang theory is correct. I'm talking about them telling you that your understanding of several basic physics concepts are flawed. That conservation of energy doesn't work the way you claim it does, for example.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 17:04:58
I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years". That means the following:
H = 74 km/s/Mparsec. 
Thanks
Yes, that is correct.
That means the following:
Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
Well, I'm not sure what do you mean by this calculation.
Let's look again on the following expansion rate of 74 km/s/Mparsec
My understanding is that if there are two galaxies at a distance of one Mparsec from each other, (and they are not moving in space) than due to the expansion in space, they will move away from each other at (or relative velocity) 74 Km/s.
If the galaxies are located at one LY away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:
74km/s / 3 Ly = 24.666 Km/sec./ one Ly
If the galaxies are located only one Km away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:
26.666Km/sec / 9.46 x 10^12 km = 2.818 10^-12 Km/sec/one Km.

So, can you please explain what do you mean by:
Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 17:33:13
A light year is about 3 parsecs
A Mparsec is about 3 million light years.

74 km/s/Mparsec is about 74 km/sec per 3 million light years
or about  25 km/s per million light year
or about 25m/s per thousand light years
or about 25mm/ second per light year
That's about the width of the word "dimwit" per second per light year.


If the galaxies are located at one LY away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:
74km/s / 3 Ly = 24.666 Km/sec./ one Ly
About a million fold wrong.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 17:35:29
If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?
The first thing I would do would be check the units.
1 cubit +1 cubit  is about three feet.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 18:10:12
So, can you please explain what do you mean by:
Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec
I hope you realize 1,000,000 parsecs does not equal 1 parsec.
So 74 km/sec/Mparsec does not equal 74 km/sec/parsec.
Get it?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2020 19:31:27
I hope you realize 1,000,000 parsecs does not equal 1 parsec.
So 74 km/sec/Mparsec does not equal 74 km/sec/parsec.
Get it?
Thanks
Yes, the error is clear to me.
So let me update the calculation

One light year by wiki: "The light-year is a unit of length used to express astronomical distances and measures about 9.46 trillion kilometers (9.46 x 10^12 km)"
3Ly = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^12 Km
3MLy = 3* 10^6 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^18 Km
1 Year = 31556926 Seconds?
Therefore, 75Km/sec = 31556926* 75 =  2,366,769,450 Km/y = 2.366 * 10 ^9 km/year

One light year = 9.46 x 10^12 km
So 3MLy = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km * 10^6 = 28.38 * 10^18 Km

How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?
28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.

As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.

Therefore, the formula for the radius should be as follow"
After the first 12 *10^9 years interval time, the first 3 MLy Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3MLy
After the second 12 *10^9 years interval time,  a distance of 6 MLy increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3MLy
After the third 12 *10^9 years interval time, a distance of 12 MLy increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3MLy
..
After the n times 12 *10^9 years interval time, a distance of 3*2^(n-1) MLY increases to 3*2^n MLy

Therefore if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe is only 3MLY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n MLy
The formula for the time is: T (n) =  n x 12 10^9 Years.

After n =12
Radius (n=12) = 3 * 2^n MLy = 3*4096 Mly = 12.228 Billion LY.
T (time after n=12) = 12 * 12 * 10^9  = 144 BY
So, if the radius of the whole Universe is 3MLY, than 144 By are needed to set a radius of 12.228BLY.
Now we get a different problem.
I hope that this time my calculation is correct.
Please verify and advice


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 20:10:12
I hope that this time my calculation is correct.
You hoped the last one was.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2020 20:31:33
Well?

You are misunderstanding my question. I'm not talking about physicists telling you that the Big Bang theory is correct. I'm talking about them telling you that your understanding of several basic physics concepts are flawed. That conservation of energy doesn't work the way you claim it does, for example.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 21:03:59
As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.
Nope, that's wrong too.  Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving. 
Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s.  The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.  See the problem with your calculation?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 21:32:03
As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.
Nope, that's wrong too.  Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving. 
Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s.  The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.  See the problem with your calculation?
Thanks for that clarification.
I wonder what happens if we continue the series
6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.
12 million About  300 KM/S
12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.
What a weird coincidence.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2020 03:28:56
Well?
One moment please. I need to understand the issue with this expansion rate calculation.
Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s.  The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.  See the problem with your calculation?
Yes. Those are the numbers that I'm using in my calculations (or almost 75 instead of 74, and 150 instead of 148..)
Nope, that's wrong too.  Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.
No, I'm not going to give up on the math.
"Hand waving" is an action for believers. I'm not there yet.
As you claim that I have an error in my calculation, than would you kindly set it by yourself?
This calculation is very important as I see a contradiction in the BBT.
In one hand our scientists claim that due to this expansion rate, we get a minimal observable Universe radius of 46BLY, while on the other hand in the following article it is stated that it should take 3 trillion years to clear the sky from galaxies:
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
"One sad side effect of this expansion is that most of the galaxies will have receded over this horizon in about 3 trillion years"
So, I would like to verify this contradiction by real calculation.
Therefore, I insist to calculate the real impact of the expansion rate.
So, let me ask the following:
Let's assume that we could go back in time to the moment that the radius of the whole Universe was only of 3MLY.
How long it should take the expansion from this moment to increase the radius to 13 Bly?
Please use the expansion rate to prove your understanding by calculation.

Thanks for that clarification.
I wonder what happens if we continue the series
6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.
12 million About  300 KM/S
12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.
What a weird coincidence.
There is no coincidence.
I assume that our scientists have based the expansion rate exactly on this assumption.
So, those scientists that set the expansion rate didn't try to understand the impact on time.
As you accept the "hand waiving" than it should be Ok for all of you.
However, some other scientists have set the calculation.
Their Math outcome is very clear -
"One sad side effect of this expansion is that most of the galaxies will have receded over this horizon in about 3 trillion years"
Hence, there must be a contradiction in the time.
How could it be that one scientists group (that set the expansion rate) claim that due to this expansion rate we can push a galaxy from 3MLY to a distance of over than 46 BLY in just 13 BY, while other scientists group claim that in order to do less than that (Push a galaxy from 3MLY to a distance of 13 BLY) we actually need over than 3 trillion years or 3,000BY?
Don't you see the contradiction?

Therefore, I insist to calculate the time.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 30/04/2020 05:15:31
Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.
https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm (https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm)
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2020 06:16:52
Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.
https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm (https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm)

In the article it is stated:

Time = distance to a given galaxy /its velocity recession = age of the Universe.

This is a fatal mistake!!!
Based on the expansion rate, the recession velocity is just a temporary velocity that represents its current distance.
It is quite clear that in the past the distance was shorter and therefore its recession velocity was lower.
Don't forget that at the past this galaxy could be located at a distance of only 3MLY.
At that time its recession velocity was only 72 Km/s due to Ho
H = 72 km/s/Mpc
So, it is our obligation to calculate how long time it took the galaxy to increase its distance and velocity.
Based on my calculation it should take 12 By just to cross the first 3MLy
How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?
28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.
Therefore, that simple calculation doesn't represent the reality of space expansion.
How could they make such a sever mistake?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/04/2020 08:33:05
Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.
https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm (https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm)

In the article it is stated:

Time = distance to a given galaxy /its velocity recession = age of the Universe.

This is a fatal mistake!!!
Based on the expansion rate, the recession velocity is just a temporary velocity that represents its current distance.
It is quite clear that in the past the distance was shorter and therefore its recession velocity was lower.
Don't forget that at the past this galaxy could be located at a distance of only 3MLY.

This means that the space in-between the emitter and the source has expanded over time. The further away the object the more the expansion and the greater the red shift.

Doesn't this tell you something? Maybe over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

We can never know where the galaxies are 'now'. The information hasn't reached us yet. Science works on a principle called observation. Maybe someday you will read about it and be amazed. It will be your lightbulb moment. Or maybe all your switched have tripped. That could explain why you keep typing nonsense onto a science forum.

Quote
At that time its recession velocity was only 72 Km/s due to Ho
H = 72 km/s/Mpc
So, it is our obligation to calculate how long time it took the galaxy to increase its distance and velocity.
Based on my calculation it should take 12 By just to cross the first 3MLy
How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?
28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.
Therefore, that simple calculation doesn't represent the reality of space expansion.
How could they make such a sever mistake?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 08:54:05
I assume that our scientists have based the expansion rate exactly on this assumption.
Then you are an idiot.
Because you posted  a link to a page that tells you that it is done by looking at the apparent brightness of Cepheid variable stars.
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
It's now clear that you are making judgements, not on the basis on the facts, but on what you want to believe.
You have abandoned science.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2020 17:42:42
This means that the space in-between the emitter and the source has expanded over time. The further away the object the more the expansion and the greater the red shift.
Doesn't this tell you something? Maybe over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
You are missing the key point in my message.
If over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating, than as we go back on time the velocity must go down.
Therefore, at the early stage of our universe, after the Big bang, most of the galaxies/matter were located nearby. So, a galaxy that is located today at the far end of the Universe (13BLY away) could be located at the early time at a distance of only 3MLY away from us.
Due to the expansion rate at that early time, this galaxy was probably moving away from us at only 75 Km/sec.
So, if you agree with this explanation, than you also have to understand that at this rate, it should take it about 12 BY just to cross the first 3MLY.
Therefore, a galaxy that we see/observe today at a distance of 13BLY, can't get there in only 13.8 BY.
Much longer time is needed.
So, this by itself should kill the BBT.
If you wish to contredict this understanding, than it is your obligation to show the math for the time interval that is needed from starting velocity of 75Km/s (at a distance of 3ML) till the speed of light (at 13BLY).
I'm not going to accept any sort of hand waving.
Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.
Only real math please.
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
In this articale it is stated:
"The new measurement doesn't just tell scientists how fast the universe is expanding, but helps shed light on the mystery of why this expansion is accelerating. Dark energy is the name given to whatever is causing the universe's expansion to speed up. Yet scientists have little idea what it is. "
"This is a huge puzzle," Freedman said
How long are we going to read about "puzzled scientists" that "have little idea what it is"?
It is clear that those scientists don't have a clue how our universe really works.
As long as they keep the BBT, they will surly observe more and more contradictions to this irrelevant theory.

Then you are an idiot.
Shame on you.
Do you really think that this negative approach will help you to reject my message?
Actually, It is clear indication that you can't contradict the idea that in 13BY there is no way to set a galaxy at 13BLY away.
If you could prove it, you would surly show you calculation.
It is pathetic. How miserable you are
It's time for you to apologize..
Without it, I have no intention to read your messages any more.



Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 18:25:19
It's time for you to apologize..
I apologize for pointing out that you seem to be an idiot who didn't understand that, having pointed out how the expansion of the universe is calculated, then claimed that it was calculated differently.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 18:27:46
Without it, I have no intention to read your messages any more.
Brought to you by the "Na naa nnaa. I'm not listening" school of scientific debate.

Did you somehow think that made you look better?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 18:30:20
If you could prove it, you would surly show you calculation.
I pointed out where you had already posted that someone had done the calculation.

Because you posted  a link to a page that tells you that it is done by looking at the apparent brightness of Cepheid variable stars.
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html

And I also did point it out, in the first place by calculation.

I wonder what happens if we continue the series
6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.
12 million About  300 KM/S
12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.
What a weird coincidence.


If you don't want to get called an idiot, don't act like one.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 30/04/2020 19:57:31
If over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating, than as we go back on time the velocity must go down.
You really do not have a clue what you are talking about.  It amazes me that you could have so little knowledge of basic astronomy.  Usually you cranks have at least some basic knowledge of the subject before you make up your hair brain conjectures.  None of you can do math but at least most you guys have a wiki level understanding.  Except you don't even have that.
The current explanation of expansion states that in the first tiny fraction of a second the universe began expanding in the next tiny fraction of a second the universe expanded WAY faster than light and after that fraction of a second it continued too expand at a much slower rate.  That rate of expansion slowed over next 10 billion years.  Approximately 4 billion years ago the rate of expansion began to accelerate and continues today.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/05/2020 05:31:39
The current explanation of expansion states that in the first tiny fraction of a second the universe began expanding in the next tiny fraction of a second the universe expanded WAY faster than light and after that fraction of a second it continued too expand at a much slower rate.  That rate of expansion slowed over next 10 billion years.  Approximately 4 billion years ago the rate of expansion began to accelerate and continues today.
Well, I clearly know that theory.
However, this kind of explanation is just a "hand waiving".
We discuss science.
Please show the math for the size of our universe.
I have tried to understand the size of the Universe after the inflation.
I have found that it was in a size of 1/10 of our galaxy:
"It is very difficult to quantify the size of the observable universe after inflation ended. We do not know how 'big' it was when inflation started, how rapidly it doubled in size ['inflated'], or how long the inflationary period persisted. Estimates of size after inflation vary wildly. Alan Guth guestimated it was around the size of a marble. Lineweaver estimates the universe grew by a factor of ~10E30 during inflation - re: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305179v1. By that standard, if you assume the observable universe was a planck length prior to inflation, you end up with a size of about 1.6E-05 meters after inflation. If you assume it was the size of a proton, you get a universe of about 1.6E15 meters, or around 1/10 the size of our galaxy.
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/comparable-size-of-the-observable-universe-immediately-after-inflation.731775/"
Please remember that the expansion rate is about 75Km/sec/3MLY.
You have stated that Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec:
I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years".  That means the following:
H = 74 km/s/Mparsec.  Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
After the inflation, the size of the Universe was in the size of 1/10 of our galaxy.
Therefore, we should calculate the expansion rate for 1/10 galaxy.
If the Milky way is 100,000LY, than 1/10 is 10,000Ly or 10^4 Ly.
Therefore, the expansion rate is:
75 x 10^-6 km/s  *10^4  /3 * 10^6 = 2.5 10^-8 Km/s = 2.5 10^-3 cm/s per 10,000 Ly.
If you think that the expansion rate was different, than please introduce the no. for each time interval.
I insist to set math for the whole process of the expansion - step by step and verify if it is feasible to get an observable universe of 92 BLY from the size of a 1/10 galaxy in only 13.8 BY.
Please no more "hand waiving".
Only real math.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2020 08:55:12
Can I just check on something?
Have you abandoned the idea from your first few lines- the idea that the CMBR means that the universe  is infinite.
Because, if you have not, then your model is clearly not any better than the usual one and you are not in a position to "insist" on anything.
So

Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?
On what basis do you claim that it is unrealistic?
It is exactly what we would expect (and what was, in fact, predicted)  from the very red-shifted black body radiation that arose from the early universe when the expansion cooled it to a point where atoms formed among a high density plasma.

If the universe started off hot and dense then expanded, a CMBR is not just "realistic", it's inevitable.

Also, if the universe had cold black walls, a CMBR would be inevitable.

So there are at least two scenarios where the universe is finite, but there is a CMBR like the one we observe.

So it is simply illogical to say that a CMBR implies an infinite universe.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
" a CMBR is consistent with an infinite Universe"
"a CMBR means that we have an  infinite universe"

The important difference is that only one of them is true.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 01/05/2020 13:18:19
Well, I clearly know that theory.
However, this kind of explanation is just a "hand waiving".
We discuss science.
Dave, you are ignorant of the BBT and science in general.  Your 'theory' D is tripe.  You haven't discussed science.  All you do is try twist scientific ideas and try to fit them into your silly rambling 'theory'.  You will never acknowledge that you're ideas are wrong and silly because they make perfect sense to you.  What you don't realize is that your 'theory' makes sense to you because it is based on your very limited knowledge. 
For crying out loud, your goofy idea violates relativity, with no explanation of how that could possibly happen.  You and thousands of others like you have these silly 'super theories' that are based on misconceptions and ignorance.  All of you bask in the fantasy that you are smarter than all the great minds of science. 
I know there is nothing; no evidence, no math and no experiment that would cause you to admit you are wrong, because that would ruin the fantasy.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/05/2020 19:32:17
I know there is nothing; no evidence, no math and no experiment that would cause you to admit you are wrong,
You clearly know that this is nonsense.
You have found an error in my calculation and I have immediately accepted your important verification.
However, it seems that now you have no answer to my question:
I insist to set math for the whole process of the expansion - step by step and verify if it is feasible to get an observable universe of 92 BLY from the size of a 1/10 galaxy in only 13.8 BY.
Please no more "hand waiving".
Only real math.
If you had an answer to my question, you would surly introduce it and close the discussion.
However, it is quite clear that you have no answer to this question.

Therefore, you continue with your hand waiving and as usual use the best tactic to "kill" the other side by highlighting his poor knowledge and ignorant in science:
Dave, you are ignorant of the BBT and science in general.
Sorry, you have lost your case
You had a wish that the Inflation would help you to save the case.
However, the Inflation process can just set the Universe at only 10,000 Ly. No more than that.
Now it is impossible mission for the space expansion to take the Universe from this size and bring it to 92BLY in only 13BY.
So, instead of highlighting your math calculation or accept the idea that you have lost the case, you hope that if the other side will be afraid to show himself as an ignorant, he will have to accept whatever you say just to be in the winning side.
Sorry, I do not afraid from you nonsense about my knowledge.
I do care only about science law.
Hence, let's close the discussion on this issue by concluding that the science community can't backup the unrealistic expansion by math.
Now, you are more than welcome to continue with your hand waiving as you wish!
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2020 20:05:18
You have found an error in my calculation and I have immediately accepted your important verification.
I found another  problem or two, but you haven't addressed them.

However, the Inflation process can just set the Universe at only 10,000 Ly. No more than that.
What orifice did you pull that number from?
Now it is impossible mission for the space expansion to take the Universe from this size and bring it to 92BLY in only 13BY.
Is that an attempt at proof by loud assertion?
It's not enough to say it is impossible; you have to explain why.

or accept the idea that you have lost the case,
There's no reason to suppose that we have.
Hence, let's close the discussion on this issue by concluding that the science community can't backup the unrealistic expansion by math.
You can't close a discussion by ignoring the facts.
I do care only about science law.
Why not learn some then? It can be very rewarding.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 01/05/2020 20:25:42
I do care only about science law.

Oh please. If that was true, you'd quit posting ideas that break the laws of physics.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 01/05/2020 22:55:21
I insist to set math for the whole process of the expansion - step by step and verify if it is feasible to get an observable universe of 92 BLY from the size of a 1/10 galaxy in only 13.8 BY.
The observable universe is about 13.8 bly the actual size is about 93 bly.

I have corrected your math 2 or 3 times, I am done.  Here is how the age is computed.  This is from Wiki:

If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age d81584f09e174eec259979ae8f92eb09.gif is then given by an expression of the form

d7d02bcca6d3acd6cc3b46e72e9d18bf.gif

where 7c5081abe6c2100f0e44396b6ac51661.gif is the Hubble parameter and the function F depends only on the fractional contribution to the universe's energy content that comes from various components. The first observation that one can make from this formula is that it is the Hubble parameter that controls that age of the universe, with a correction arising from the matter and energy content. So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the Hubble time, the inverse of the Hubble parameter. With a value for 7c5081abe6c2100f0e44396b6ac51661.gif around 69 km/s/Mpc, the Hubble time evaluates to cfdd1a0aa1ecabdcdf114049d02953e8.gif= 14.5 billion years.[6]


Spend as much time on this as you want.  If you think it is wrong, then call your nearest university or college and talk with them.

Now getting back to your conjecture, why do you think it is ok to violate relativity?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/05/2020 06:14:21
I have corrected your math 2 or 3 times, I am done.
Ok
So, it is clear that you and all the science community didn't set any math to verify the minimal time interval that is needed to expand the Universe from 10,000Ly to 20,000, from 20,000 to 40,000 and so on till 92BLY. .
Once we agree with that, we can continue the discussion.
So, in order to bypass this problem you continue with your hand waving and ask for some help from Mr. Friedmann.
If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation.
However, do you know that the Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic?
However, our universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic. This was very clear also to Mr. friedmann.
Therefore, in order to bypass this problem he had assumed that empirically, this is justified on scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
Hence, you can't use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than 100Mpc.
So, you can't just take the Universe at the size of 10,000Ly and set Friedmann equations which is relevant only for scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
As you try to do so, you set a severe violation that is the base for the severe mistake at the age/size of our Universe.

It is also important to highlight at this point that our scientists don't really see any sort of space expansion.
They only see expansion in the galaxies.
As they couldn't find any real logical answer for that, they came with this imagination that called space expansion.
In real physics law there is no room for space expansion or time expansion.
Therefore, the  whole concept of space expansion is a severe violation of physics law.

However, if you use a violation element as space expansion in your theory, you also should discover it sooner or later.
So, in real theory you must set the expectation and verify the results.
Therefore, if our scientists assume that there is space expansion, they must understand the outcome of that activity and backup it with real observation.
We all know that In 1929, Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos.
So the question many asked at that time was, just how much was the expansion slowing?
If the space expanding was slowing, than we all could say that it confirms the expectation and therefore it also confirms the BBT.
"Surprisingly" in the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!
At that point, the science community had to look for better theory for our Universe.
However, and as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":
Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.
ow getting back to your conjecture, why do you think it is ok to violate relativity?
I have already deeply explained that there is no contradiction between relativity to Theory D
So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D. Therefore, you are using the flag of relativity in order to reject the main idea in theory D that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.
You wish to prove that this phenomenon contradicts the reality.
However, our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.

https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."

That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.
Actually, if we go back on time, when the BBT had been offered, no one really anticipate that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light. I assume that even Einstein didn't know about it when he came with his relativity theory.
This observation was a big surprise to the science community at that time.
So, I claim that it is not my task to explain the problem between the observations to the relativity formula.
I can just assume that if Einstein knew it on time, he would probably reconsider the whole issue of relativity.
In any case, I have estimated that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light and we have clear observation that fully supports this assumption.
Therefore, so far you couldn't offer any single observation that could reject Theory D, while I have offered almost unlimited problems in the BBT.
Each one of them knocks down the fiction that is called BBT.
With regards to Relativity
It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.
Therefore at nearby aria we would never ever see any Star/galaxy or even photon crossing faster than the speed of light.
However, in a very far distance, it might be different. Therefore, we clearly see/know that at the far end of our visible Universe galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
This by itself doesn't set any contradiction to the concept of space expansion or theory D.
However, at nearby aria it is totally different.
Nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
However, based on the inflation theory, at the early phase of the Universe, the matter was very concentrated and located nearby while the expansion was faster than the speed of light.
That theory clearly contradicts Einstein relativity concept.
Therefore, I reject the whole Inflation process as it is unrealistic due to relativity.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 02/05/2020 06:35:06
It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.

Ha ha, no.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/05/2020 11:32:35
It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.
Ha ha, no.
Few words about Albert Einstein and its relativity theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Born: March 14, 1879, Ulm
Died: April 18, 1955, Princeton, New Jersey
In 1914, he was elected to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, where he remained for 19 years. Soon after publishing his work on special relativity, Einstein began working to extend the theory to gravitational fields; he then published a paper on general relativity in 1916, introducing his theory of gravitation."

So, Einstein had published his theories about special/general relativity before the ending of the First World War.
At that time no one really considered that galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light.
So, the relativity was perfectly OK for the information that was available at that time (about a compact universe without any ability to move galaxies faster than the speed of light at the far end of our visible universe).
Einstein had passed away is 1955 while our scientists have discovered the ultra high velocity of far away galaxies only in 1990.
Therefore, he and the whole science community didn't know back in 1916 and up to 1990 that there is any possibility that far away galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.
Hence, we can't blame Einstein for missing this key information in his formula of relativity.
However, in the same token, those scientists that brought the idea of the BBT were positively sure that the expansion is slowing. Therefore, before 1990 they clearly didn't have a basic clue about the idea that far away galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.

We all know that In 1929, Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos.
So the question many asked at that time was, just how much was the expansion slowing?
If the space expanding was slowing, than we all could say that it confirms the expectation and therefore it also confirms the BBT.
"Surprisingly" in the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!
Therefore, it was expected that this discovery should eliminate the BBT.
So, please how can you tell now that only the BBT can explain that phenomenon while in reality it was a clear contradiction with the BBT.
Do you really think that you can change the history?
However, somehow our scientist came with brilliant ideas: Dark matter and inflation.
1. Inflation - The inflation is a direct contradiction with the relativity.
based on the inflation theory, at the early phase of the Universe, the matter was very concentrated and located nearby while the expansion was faster than the speed of light.
There is no way to get locally velocities which is faster than the speed of light. This idea contradicts with the Relativity. Therefore, the inflation is just imagination.
2. Dark matter
as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":
Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.
However, In order to validate the Dark matter our scientists have used the" forbidden" cosmological constant that Einstein have set in his formula. They have totally neglected the simple fact that later on he had stated that this was his biggest mistake:
"In many Einstein biographies, it is claimed that Einstein referred to the cosmological constant in later years as his "biggest blunder". The astrophysicist Mario Livio has recently cast doubt on this claim, suggesting that it may be exaggerated.[196]
So till 1990 no one really consider to use this forbidden cosmological constant and there was no need for that as our scientists were sure that due to the BBT the expansion is slowing down.
Therefore, In order to bypass that killing discovery, our scientists have decided to use that cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his request. Therefore, it is a clear violation on Einstein formula.
So again, do you really think that you can change the history?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2020 12:00:56
You seem to have forgotten to address this

Can I just check on something?
Have you abandoned the idea from your first few lines- the idea that the CMBR means that the universe  is infinite.
Because, if you have not, then your model is clearly not any better than the usual one and you are not in a position to "insist" on anything.
So

Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?
On what basis do you claim that it is unrealistic?
It is exactly what we would expect (and what was, in fact, predicted)  from the very red-shifted black body radiation that arose from the early universe when the expansion cooled it to a point where atoms formed among a high density plasma.

If the universe started off hot and dense then expanded, a CMBR is not just "realistic", it's inevitable.

Also, if the universe had cold black walls, a CMBR would be inevitable.

So there are at least two scenarios where the universe is finite, but there is a CMBR like the one we observe.

So it is simply illogical to say that a CMBR implies an infinite universe.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
" a CMBR is consistent with an infinite Universe"
"a CMBR means that we have an  infinite universe"

The important difference is that only one of them is true.

Do you accept that you were mistaken in thinking that a microwave background implies an infinite universe?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 02/05/2020 13:43:30
I have already deeply explained that there is no contradiction between relativity to Theory D
No you haven't explained it.  Your conjecture states that galaxies can move through space faster than light.  That clearly and unambiguously violates relativity.  If your conjecture is true then you have falsified relativity. 
How do you explain this?  Is Einstein wrong or are you wrong?   
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 02/05/2020 17:08:35
Maybe you should go study what relativity actually claims instead of straw-manning it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/05/2020 17:57:09
Is Einstein wrong or are you wrong?   
You are wrong
Your conjecture states that galaxies can move through space faster than light.  That clearly and unambiguously violates relativity.  If your conjecture is true then you have falsified relativity.
How do you explain this?
How can you speak in the name of relativity while the BBT directly contradicts both the Inflation and the space expansion?
Did you try to read my following explanation?
1. Inflation - The inflation is a direct contradiction with the relativity.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:14:21
based on the inflation theory, at the early phase of the Universe, the matter was very concentrated and located nearby while the expansion was faster than the speed of light.
There is no way to get locally velocities which is faster than the speed of light. This idea contradicts with the Relativity. Therefore, the inflation is just imagination.
2. Dark matter
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:14:21
as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":
Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.
However, In order to validate the Dark matter our scientists have used the" forbidden" cosmological constant that Einstein have set in his formula. They have totally neglected the simple fact that later on he had stated that this was his biggest mistake:
"In many Einstein biographies, it is claimed that Einstein referred to the cosmological constant in later years as his "biggest blunder". The astrophysicist Mario Livio has recently cast doubt on this claim, suggesting that it may be exaggerated.[196]
So till 1990 no one really consider to use this forbidden cosmological constant and there was no need for that as our scientists were sure that due to the BBT the expansion is slowing down.
Therefore, In order to bypass that killing discovery, our scientists have decided to use that cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his request. Therefore, it is a clear violation on Einstein formula.
So again, do you really think that you can change the history?
As I have already explained Einstein was not aware in his time about the discovery that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, his theory was applicable to the compact and local Universe that was known at his time.
So Einstein have told us in his relativity theories that in his compact and local universe there is NO WAY to get velocities faster than the speed of light.
Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light. This is a fatal contradiction with Einstein relativity theory.
That by itself knocks down the BBT.
Maybe you should go study what relativity actually claims instead of straw-manning it.
As you know relativity much better than me, don't you see clear contradiction between relativity to the velocities faster than light in the inflation assumption?

However, I assume that our science community are not going to give up so soon. Hence if that is not good enough, than let's look again on the history of the BBT.
As I have already explained, before 1990 our scientists were expecting that the expansion should slow down.
Therefore, the discovery of the velocities of the far end galaxies (higher than the speed of light) set a sever contradiction with the expectation based on the BBT at that time.
This is one more reason why the BBT might be none relevant.
In any case, in order to keep the BBT alive, our scientists have offered the dark matter.
So, it is not the expansion that takes those far end galaxies faster than the speed of light (and overcome the gravity) but it is the dark matter that does this job.
Therefore, do you agree that the BBT overcomes the relativity/gravity problems by dark energy.
However, our scientists don't have any clue about that dark energy:
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
"A mysterious quantity known as dark energy makes up nearly three-fourths of the universe, yet scientists are unsure not only what it is but how it operates."
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, that dark energy is offered as a saver element for the BBT without any clue what is that dark energy, how it had been evolved and if it is really there..
It is also stated:
"Calculating the energy needed to overcome gravity, scientists determined that dark energy makes up roughly 68 percent of the universe. Dark matter makes up another 27 percent, leaving the "normal" matter that we are familiar with to make up less than 5 percent of the cosmos around us."
So, our scientists want us to believe that this dark matter is actually 68 present from the whole energy in the universe while the Normal matter including all the galaxies in the observable 92BLY universe is less than 5%.
So, how can we believe that those extra 95% energy is needed for the BBT just to explain the 5% of the real matter that we see?
Let me ask you the following?
It is clear that our science community feel that they have full control on the Knowledge in the Universe. They deliver any dark matter and dark energy at any density and at any location that is needed for them in order to support the BBT.
So, why for example, it is forbidden for me to use those brilliant ideas of dark energy/matter?
 If it works for the BBT, why I can't use them also for Theory D or any sort of theory?
Why I can't assume that those dark ideas were there before the BBT and than those dark energies have set the entire infinite Universe. No need for a bang and no need to set any sort of calculation.
Do you agree with that?
So, if it makes it more acceptable, do you agree that I can use those dark ideas also for theory D (although there is no need for them)?
In this way you won't ask me again about relativity and we all should be very satisfy.
Or do you mean that only our scientists that believe in the BBT have full access to those dark ideas and therefore, no body else should use them in his theory in order to overcome the relativity?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2020 18:52:31
Did you try to read my following explanation?
That's an explanation of why you think teh BBT doesn't agree with relativity- it's mistaken , but that's not the point>
You can tell us how a million different ideas don't agree with relativity.
It won't make any difference to the fact that your idea does not agree with relativity.




It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.
Relativity has been verified on, at least, an intergalactic scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 02/05/2020 19:00:02
You are wrong
Please show me where I am wrong.  I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light.
Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light.
False.  The universe was expanding faster than light, the mass was not moving. 
Let me again remind you, your inability to understand a concept does not make it wrong.

But this is all a waste of time, you don't want to learn because then you would have to abandon your 'theory'.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 02/05/2020 20:35:02
As you know relativity much better than me, don't you see clear contradiction between relativity to the velocities faster than light in the inflation assumption?

Another perfect example of you not understanding relativity. Or inflation. Or both. Probably both.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 02/05/2020 21:17:17
Based on the inflation, matter in a compact early universe (which by definition should be smaller than the Universe that Einstein was considering) is moving faster than the speed of light.
Sorry, that is just your misunderstanding.  Nobody thinks matter moved faster than light, ever.  What you are trying to say is that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
So Einstein have told us in his relativity theories that in his compact and local universe there is NO WAY to get velocities faster than the speed of light.
Einstein's mathematics showed that nothing can move through space faster than c.  The math is easy, just high school algebra.  The closer you approach c the higher your relativistic mass becomes, at c your relativistic mass becomes infinite.  So obviously, you can't get there.
This is a fatal contradiction with Einstein relativity theory.
It would be a flaw if we thought that mass went faster than light, but we don't so it isn't.
That by itself knocks down the BBT.
Except the BBT doesn't say that mass moves faster than light, so not a problem.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/05/2020 06:06:08
Please show me where I am wrong.
You and our science community have a fatal error in your calculation of time/age of the Universe.
You have stated:
If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age  is then given by an expression of the form
where  is the Hubble parameter and the function F depends only on the fractional contribution to the universe's energy content that comes from various components. The first observation that one can make from this formula is that it is the Hubble parameter that controls that age of the universe, with a correction arising from the matter and energy content. So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the Hubble time, the inverse of the Hubble parameter. With a value for  around 69 km/s/Mpc, the Hubble time evaluates to = 14.5 billion years.[6]
I have replied:
do you know that the Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic?
However, our universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic. This was very clear also to Mr. friedmann.
Therefore, in order to bypass this problem he had assumed that empirically, this is justified on scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
Hence, you can't use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than 100Mpc.
So, you can't just take the Universe at the size of 10,000Ly and set Friedmann equations which is relevant only for scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
As you try to do so, you set a severe violation that is the base for the severe mistake at the age/size of our Universe.
So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
Once you understand that, you have to agree that our scientists have fatal error in their assumption about age/size of the Universe
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 08:46:15
So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is  changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with  the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.

So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it  for smaller samples of the early universe.

So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.



Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 03/05/2020 12:51:54
You and our science community have a fatal error in your calculation of time/age of the Universe.
I guess it's nice to feel you are smarter than all of the scientists in the world.  It is especially surprising since you can't even do freshman physics.

You did not answer the question I asked, so I will ask again.

"Please show me where I am wrong.  I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light."
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/05/2020 16:01:48
"Please show me where I am wrong.  I have told that according relativity it is not possible to exceed the speed of light."
I have already answered this question
So, let me tell you again:
Based on theory D, the hypothetical idea was that galaxies at the far end should move faster than the speed of light.
That was clear to me several years ago while I had no clue if we have a prove for that..
We all know that we can justify expectation/hypothetical ideas by math/physical law. However, the highest level of confirmation is - observation.
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
As there is a clear observation for that idea, than there is no need for me to deal with any sort of contradiction that you might have with this concept or other one even if it is called Relativity.
Just an example - Let's assume that based on Einstein formula birds can't fly backwards.
So, if we find a bird that flying backwards, do we need to kill it as it doesn't obey to Einstein formula, or could it be that there is an error in the formula???
Sorry, it is up to you to solve the contradiction between observation to any sort of hypothetical ideas/ formulas.
This is your job to update the formula so it will reflect the OBSERVATION.
Our universe is not working according to our scientists' formula
It must work the other way.
Our scientists' formulas must represent the universe that we see.
Newton didn't set the gravity formula and ask the Universe to obey to his formula.
It was the other way. Newton formula represents the gravity of our universe
At the same token, as there is a contradiction between the relativity to the Observation you have two options:
Option one - As the Universe doesn't obey to the relativity formula, we should consider destroying that knotty Universe and asking for new one the meets the relativity.
Option two - Update the relativity formula to meet the new observation
Please choose one.

In any case, you surly can't now claim that ONLY the BBT can solve the contradiction between the observations to the relativity.
This is a FATAL historical mistake and clear lie.
Based on the BBT and the expansion till 1990, our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT???
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.
So, how  can you claim now that ONLY BBT has the explanation for this discovery, while it was the Biggest surprising observation for our scientists in 1990?
Do you really think that you can change the history?
Actually, upon this discovery, our scientists have almost abandon the BBT and the whole expansion theory.
Just after the imagination idea of Dark energy the BBT came back to life.
It is stated back on white in the history of the BBT.
Even so, in order to justify that dark energy our scientists add the forbidden cosmological constant to Einstein equation, while he has stated that this constant is its biggest mistake in his entire life.
So, how do you dare to speak in the name of Einstein relativity formula, while on the other hand you set this forbidden constant cosmological in his formula?
If you really care about Einstein - than first take out the cosmologic constant from his formulas and then let's discuss.
So, how can you claim that only the BBT can explain the ultra high velocity of far end galaxies while we all know that this discovery almost kill the BBT?
Don't you have some minimal respect to history?
In any case, it is our scientists' obligation to update the formulas to meet our observable Universe even if this formula is called relativity.
This is their job. Not mine.

I still waiting for your answer:
So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
Once you understand that, you have to agree that our scientists have fatal error in their assumption about age/size of the Universe
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 16:32:14
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
Where is the article that says things move through space faster than light rather than that space itself is expanding faster than light?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 16:33:06
I still waiting for your answer:

Let me know why this was delayed.

So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is  changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with  the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.

So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it  for smaller samples of the early universe.

So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.




Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 16:37:20
I still waiting for your answer:

Let me know why this was delayed.

So, do you agree once and for all that it is a fatal error to use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc?
As far as I can tell, the problem here is, ironically, the "once and for all" bit.
The universe is  changing-all the evidence show's it's expanding.
And so, if the requirement for homogeneity is "take a big enough sample" then "big enough" will change with  the size of the universe.
If 100 Mpc is big enough today then 50Mpc would have been big enough when the universe was half its current size and so on.

So, it might be inappropriate to use it for smaller distances now, but perfectly reasonably to use it  for smaller samples of the early universe.

So it's not a fatal flaw to use it for modeling a small early universe.

Speaking of "still waiting".
When are you going to address the issues and questions I raised here?
Can I just check on something?
Have you abandoned the idea from your first few lines- the idea that the CMBR means that the universe  is infinite.
Because, if you have not, then your model is clearly not any better than the usual one and you are not in a position to "insist" on anything.
So

Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?
On what basis do you claim that it is unrealistic?
It is exactly what we would expect (and what was, in fact, predicted)  from the very red-shifted black body radiation that arose from the early universe when the expansion cooled it to a point where atoms formed among a high density plasma.

If the universe started off hot and dense then expanded, a CMBR is not just "realistic", it's inevitable.

Also, if the universe had cold black walls, a CMBR would be inevitable.

So there are at least two scenarios where the universe is finite, but there is a CMBR like the one we observe.

So it is simply illogical to say that a CMBR implies an infinite universe.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
" a CMBR is consistent with an infinite Universe"
"a CMBR means that we have an  infinite universe"

The important difference is that only one of them is true.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 03/05/2020 19:46:34
Based on theory D, the hypothetical idea was that galaxies at the far end should move faster than the speed of light.
That violates relativity so we can safely toss that conjecture out with the trash.
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
 
In any case, you surly can't now claim that ONLY the BBT can solve the contradiction between the observations to the relativity.
There is no contradiction.  I don't know if you're just trolling now or not smart enough to understand.

Based on the BBT and the expansion till 1990, our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT???
Of course not!  This whole science thing is a real mystery to you, isn't it?
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.
False.  Apparently, the BTT is another mystery to you.  Hint:  Dark energy is not required to have recession velocities exceed the speed of light.I
Even so, in order to justify that dark energy our scientists add the forbidden cosmological constant to Einstein equation, while he has stated that this constant is its biggest mistake in his entire life.
So, how do you dare to speak in the name of Einstein relativity formula, while on the other hand you set this forbidden constant cosmological in his formula?
Your child like understanding of these fairly complicated ideas make any discussion, really challenging, annoying and ultimately useless.  Your basic response so far has been to stick your fingers in your ears and say nuh-uh.

Let my try with small words and short sentences.
The field equations of General Relativity indicated that the universe was not static.  Einstein thought it probably was static so he put in a fudge factor to make the equation say the universe was static.  Oops, he realized the universe was not static so he took out the fudge factor.
Recent measurements indicate that as of about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate.  The field equations of General Relativity did not reflect these observations.  A cosmological constant was added to the field equations to have them accurately reflect observations. 
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/05/2020 17:46:21
The field equations of General Relativity indicated that the universe was not static.  Einstein thought it probably was static so he put in a fudge factor to make the equation say the universe was static.  Oops, he realized the universe was not static so he took out the fudge factor.
Yes, that is fully correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
In theoretical physics, when Albert Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant), whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation. He later called this, "the biggest blunder of my life."[2]"
So, we all agree that Einstein have totally rejected the idea of this Fudge_factor that we call today "Cosmological Constant"

Recent measurements indicate that as of about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate.
That is totally incorrect.
Our scientists only see that the farther a galaxy is located the faster it is moving.
So, the idea that about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate is just a fantasy.
As I have already explained, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real age of our universe due to the following:
Friedman equation: Those equations valid ONLY for Homogenous and isotropic Universe. However, it is very clear that our Universe is not homogenous and not isotropic. So, in order to bypass this problem Friedman assumed that it might be Homogenous and isotropic at a size which is bigger than 100 Mpc.
I don't agree with this assumption. It is not Homogenous and isotropic at any size.
Let me just use the following examples:
We can say that the cars in the highway from NY to DFW have all the variety of the color rainbow.
Therefore, if we look far away than the mix of the colors might be white.
So, theoretically we can assume that in large scale the color of all the cars in this highway is white.
Than we can say, that as they are already white in large scale, than if we dense them all in a limited area they will surely be white. So, we can say that even in small scale they are white.
In the same token our scientists wish to believe that when the Universe was smaller than 100 Mpc it was surly Homogenous and isotropic.
Sorry, I don't agree with the idea that the Universe is Homogenous an isotropic at larger than 100 Mpc and surly not when the whole Universe was smaller than 100 Mpc.
Don't forget that the inflation had ended when the Universe size was at the size of only 10,00 LY.
On the other hand, our scientists see mature SMBH and Galaxies with Billions of stars when the Universe age (based on their assumption) was younger than 600 MY and still quite compact.
So, if the early 100PC was homogenous and isotropic, than the density of the matter should be identical everywhere. That by itself is a direct contradiction to star/BH/SMBH/galaxies forming activity.
However, as usual our scientists always assume that the universe acts according to their wishing list.
So, when it is convenient to use Friedmann equation, than they assume for homogenous and isotropic also for small scale, while as they see young supper massive galaxy, than they assume that the star formation have started very early so the early universe shouldn't be considered as homogenous and isotropic.
I have also explained to you that it was a severe mistake to divide the temp by CMB' redshirt in order to get other estimation about the temp/age of the early universe and you have confirmed your error about it.
So, to make it short:
The assumption that about 4 billion years ago the expansion of the universe began to accelerate is just a fiction.
The field equations of General Relativity did not reflect these observations.
The field equations of General Relativity don't need to reflect that imagination as the observation does not reflect any age..
The real Observation means - the farther the galaxy is, the faster it moves. That's all.
A cosmological constant was added to the field equations to have them accurately reflect observations.

As you have severe mistake in understanding the observation than it is also a severe mistake to add this cosmological constant to meet this imagination.
In any case, as Einstein had stated that this cosmological constant was his biggest mistake, than our scientists shouldn't use it in his formula under any circumstances.
However, it seems that nothing can stop them to believe in the BBT. Not even Einstein himself.
I wonder how our scientists dare to bring back that constant to Einstein formula against his clear request/will and still call it Einstein formula???
In any case, if they wish to add this constant in Einstein formula than they shouldn't use this formula under his name.
As they carry Einstein name for nothing than it is a severe lie.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48
If so, you have to agree that based on the BBT and the expansion theory (till 1990) it was not expected to see galaxies as the far end moving faster than the speed of light.
False.  Apparently, the BTT is another mystery to you.  Hint:  Dark energy is not required to have recession velocities exceed the speed of light.I
That is incorrect.
The history is written black on white:
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
"In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos, so the question many asked was, just how much was the expansion slowing?"
So, our scientists were sure that the expansion is slowing.
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, our scientists in 1990 have assumed that the dark energy is needed to this acceleration.
If now you have changed your assumption, than this is OK.
But you can't change the history.
If you do so you actually lie.

That violates relativity so we can safely toss that conjecture out with the trash.
How do you dare to speak on the name of Einstein Relativity, while just now you have approved to ignore his direct request for not to adding that cosmological constant in his formula?
 
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:01:48
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.

Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/04/2020 03:31:57
We have got a confirmation for galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light.
It was never in doubt that the recession velocity of galaxy can exceed c, that has been known for decades.
So you have even confirmed it


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 17:49:09
Just now I have found an article that clearly confirms this theory D hypothetical idea by REAL OBSERVATION.
Where is the article that says things move through space faster than light rather than that space itself is expanding faster than light?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 18:00:39
"In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast.
OK, so you have documented the start of the BBT as1929
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!
And you have set the date for the idea that we needed dark energy (or something) as about 1990.
(It's 1992 really,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00644200
 but that's not the point)
Do you understand that 1929 is before 1990?

So, at any time between 1929 and  the 1990s anyone who was asked about the BBT couldn't have included any discussion about dark energy.
For example, if you had asked me when Iwas a student, I'd have been able to explain BBT to you without needing to include the term "dark energy" because- and this is important, dark energy isn't actually part of the BBT.
Dark energy is what happens AFTER the big bang
It's an addition to the study of cosmology, but a BBT can (and did, and still does ) exist without it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 18:08:35
So the only question I have is did you find a woo-woo site or did you once again misunderstand a real science site.
 
So you have even confirmed it
It's the misunderstanding then.

Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 04/05/2020 18:45:53
That is totally incorrect.
Our scientists only see that the farther a galaxy is located the faster it is moving.
That is bold faced lie.
As I have already explained, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real age of our universe
What an idiot.
In any case, as Einstein had stated that this cosmological constant was his biggest mistake, than our scientists shouldn't use it in his formula under any circumstances.
What an idiot. 
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
So, our scientists in 1990 have assumed that the dark energy is needed to this acceleration.
If now you have changed your assumption, than this is OK.
But you can't change the history.
If you do so you actually lie.
What an idiot.  You said "our scientists were 100% sure that the universe is slowing down."  That false and not something that a scientist would say about any theory.  I realize that these concepts are way to subtle for an idiot to understand.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 04/05/2020 20:23:05
I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/05/2020 04:23:07
What an idiot.
Shame on you!
As of this moment, I have no intention to read your messages any more.
Thanks for all your efforts so far.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/05/2020 09:03:58
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 06/05/2020 14:24:02
Thanks for all your efforts so far.
I can't say the same for you.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/05/2020 15:11:25
Hi
Is there anyone here with  whom Dave isn't having a  childish "I'm not listening" hissy fit?
If so you could you ask him if he understands how a ship with a top speed of 10 knotts might get between two ports 19 nautical Miles apart in an hour, if there's a 9 knot current.

Because it's possible that understanding that will help him understand how, if space is moving, a thing can move through space at  less than C but end up sufficiently far away that it seemed to exceed C,

And maybe then he will recognise that the BBT and inflation is perfectly consistent with relativity.
Alternatively, perhaps Dave would like to just grow up a bit, and respond for himself.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/05/2020 04:27:01
I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.
Thanks Kryptid
I do appreciate your request that this discussion wouldn't devolve into insults.

However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
"Frustration" by Google: the feeling of being upset or annoyed, especially because of inability to change or achieve something.
That high negative emotion could lead us into awful things as insults.
Why not using the word - "disappointed"?
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.
So, I'm disappointed that you believe in space expansion, while you are frustrated that I don't accept your point of view.
So, let's make it clear:
What do we really see?
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?
So, I'm disappointed that you mix up between space expansion to matter expansion, while you are frustrated that I can't see those activities as one.
So, please is there any possibility to keep our emotion at the level of disappointed instead of frustration?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2020 05:50:10
However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?

Because we seem to be incapable of fixing the misconceptions you have about the way physics works, regardless of how much we explain it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 09:17:05
I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.
Thanks Kryptid
I do appreciate your request that this discussion wouldn't devolve into insults.

However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
"Frustration" by Google: the feeling of being upset or annoyed, especially because of inability to change or achieve something.
That high negative emotion could lead us into awful things as insults.
Why not using the word - "disappointed"?
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.
So, I'm disappointed that you believe in space expansion, while you are frustrated that I don't accept your point of view.
So, let's make it clear:
What do we really see?
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?
So, I'm disappointed that you mix up between space expansion to matter expansion, while you are frustrated that I can't see those activities as one.
So, please is there any possibility to keep our emotion at the level of disappointed instead of frustration?


By refusing to address points we raise, you are deliberately frustrating our attempts to educate you.
What do we really see?
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
We really see the expansion of space.
Because matter can not expand through space at more than C
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 09:17:38
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?



Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 07/05/2020 13:31:47
However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
The most frustrating thing is Dave's willful ignorance.  Dave is enamored with his absurd Conjecture D and the only way to continue to believe that it is viable is to reject physics.  Dave will therefore ignore, mischaracterize or obfuscate any explanation given to him on why his ideas are wrong.  If that fails Dave will say all the physicists are wrong and he is right.  Dave works very hard to remain ignorant.  I believe that level of willful ignorance is idiotic.  It is also troll behaviour and as such I should not get frustrated and realize he cannot be educated because he absolutely does not want to.  So discussion with Dave is useless, just pointing out his ideas are wrong is the best you can do.
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.
you are wrong.
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?
We all agree you are wrong.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/05/2020 20:37:17
Because we seem to be incapable of fixing the misconceptions you have about the way physics works
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2020 20:51:51
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?

We have been, but you consistently fail to understand it when we do.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 21:17:48
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?
Red shift

Now it's your turn.
Tell us anything that contradicts the BBT.
(The real one, not the strawman one you usually  go on about).
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 21:18:52
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?




Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2020 05:06:32
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:37:17
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?
Red shift
Now it's your turn.
Tell us anything that contradicts the BBT.
(The real one, not the strawman one you usually  go on about).
There are several contradictions
Let me start with the following Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG

Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law.[24] Various estimates for the Hubble constant exist. The HST Key H0 Group fitted type Ia supernovae for redshifts between 0.01 and 0.1 to find that H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1,[25] while Sandage et al. find H0 = 62.3 ± 1.3 (statistical) ± 5 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1.[26]

In this diagram they want to show us that there is a correlation between distances to redshift velocity.
They have selected Ho = 68 km/s Mpc
Therefore, at 15 Mpc the velocity of the galaxies is expected to be about 1000 Km/s
However, we clearly see in this diagram that in virgo cluster there are two galaxies that are located at about 15 Mpc from us. Based on their redshift, one is moving away at about velocity of 500 Km/s, while the other one is moving at almost 2000 Km/s. So, the relative velocity between those galaxies is 2000-500 = 1500 Km/s, while both are located at 15Mpc from us.
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.

This constant is vital for Hubble's law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.

So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.
However, that law was the base for the BBT:

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[2][3] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[4]. It is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality—Hubble constant—between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy, which can change over time, unlike the comoving distance, and its speed of separation v, i.e. the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time coordinate. (See uses of the proper distance for some discussion of the subtleties of this definition of 'velocity'.)

Please remember that this Hubble constant is used at Einstein formula as the "forbidden" cosmological constant.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.

Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
No more "Puzzled" scientists!
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today or we should find in the future for small scale and large scale.

If you can find one real observation that contradicts Theory D (now or in the future) at any scale, than I'm ready to set it in the garbage!
Only one is needed.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 08/05/2020 11:50:23
There are several contradictions
Let me start with the following Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG

Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law.[24] Various estimates for the Hubble constant exist. The HST Key H0 Group fitted type Ia supernovae for redshifts between 0.01 and 0.1 to find that H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1,[25] while Sandage et al. find H0 = 62.3 ± 1.3 (statistical) ± 5 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1.[26]

In this diagram they want to show us that there is a correlation between distances to redshift velocity.
They have selected Ho = 68 km/s Mpc
Therefore, at 15 Mpc the velocity of the galaxies is expected to be about 1000 Km/s
However, we clearly see in this diagram that in virgo cluster there are two galaxies that are located at about 15 Mpc from us. Based on their redshift, one is moving away at about velocity of 500 Km/s, while the other one is moving at almost 2000 Km/s. So, the relative velocity between those galaxies is 2000-500 = 1500 Km/s, while both are located at 15Mpc from us.
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.

This constant is vital for Hubble's law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.

So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.
However, that law was the base for the BBT:

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[2][3] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[4]. It is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality—Hubble constant—between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy, which can change over time, unlike the comoving distance, and its speed of separation v, i.e. the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time coordinate. (See uses of the proper distance for some discussion of the subtleties of this definition of 'velocity'.)

Please remember that this Hubble constant is used at Einstein formula as the "forbidden" cosmological constant.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.

Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
No more "Puzzled" scientists!
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today or we should find in the future for small scale and large scale.
All of this has been explained to you and yet you ignore the explanations.
Prime example of willful ignorance.
There is nothing wrong with being ignorant and you can learn what you don't know, there is everything wrong with being willfully ignorant.  Fighting reality to hold on to your ignorance is crazy.
Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
Except for the fact that it is not possible, you can't go faster than light.  So your 'perfect explanation' is a fantasy.
Your conjecture fails miserably, on almost every point.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 12:31:19
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.
No more so than the presence of a car on the road.
A car at a distance of practically zero would have a red shift of zero, but teh police are perfectlly able to measure that shift with a speed trap.

The explanatuion is that a car has an engine.

The explanation of some things having a speed that differs from the one calculated by Hubble's law is that expansion isn't the only thing that makes things move.


So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.
At small scales, the other factors are relatively, more significant- obviously.
That's not a problem for Hubble's law or for the BBT.
It's a problem of your understanding.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.
Obviously nonsense, all measurements have errors associated with them.
How did you imagine the errors would somehow "kill" the theory?
If anything, it is when measurements get better that they are able to kill theories.
Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
No it does not- because it breaches relativity.
This remains true no matter how many times you pretend it isn't true.
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today
Theory D does not meet the observations that we make, because, unlike those observations,  it does not agree with relativity.
If you can find one real observation that contradicts Theory D (now or in the future) at any scale, than I'm ready to set it in the garbage!
There are lots.
Take your pick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 12:32:56
There are several contradictions
You forgot to show any.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2020 14:10:50
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:06:32
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today
Theory D does not meet the observations that we make, because, unlike those observations,  it does not agree with relativity.

Sorry, this is incorrect
Our scientists clearly see/observe far end galaxies as they are moving faster than the speed of light!
I have already offered this article:
our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."
That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.
So, it is very possible that galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than light!!!
This is real observation
However, as expected this observation is not good enough for you.
Based on your full control on science, this Observation is none relevant to any other theory except of the BBT, while the relativity is relevant to all theories except the BBT
So, our scientists can decide which one can use the observation and which one can use the relativity
Therefore, based on your wisdom, it is forbidden to use this observation as an observation unless it is used in the BBT!!!
In other words – you take this observation for the benefit of the BBT, while you keep all the other ordinary people to fight with the relativity.
This is your biggest problem.
There is big difference between two locally galaxies to two very far away galaxies.
The BBT has no royalty for relativity or for that clear observation that far end galaxies are moving faster that the speed of light.
As we do see/observe that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light than it proves that the relativity works only locally. This is correct for the BBT and for any other theory.
Once you claim that the BBT can use the Observation and ignore he relativity due to some nonsense that you wish, than this by itself is a severe contradiction in science.
Therefore, you do not speak in the name of science, but in the name of the BBT.
How can you present yourself as a scientist while you speak in the name of the BBT?
You should consider changing your title to "BBT scientist" or BBT believer!

In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift. Rather than cosmological redshifts being a consequence of the relative velocities that are subject to the laws of special relativity (and thus subject to the rule that no two locally separated objects can have relative velocities with respect to each other faster than the speed of light).
So, the laws of special relativity is subject to the rule that no two locally separated objects can have relative velocities with respect to each other faster than the speed of light.
So, they don't say even one word about relativity for far away galaxies.
Do you really feel that you can band the science law as you wish?
How do you dare to speak in the name of science, while you band the observations and science laws to support only your wishful BBT.
There is a clear observation that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
Observation is at the top level of evidence.
As we observe that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light, than it proves that relativity works ONLY locally.
I don't need to deal with relativity or with the BBT.
This observation is free for all!!!
It is your problem. You have to adjust the relativity to meet the observation
Our mathematical calculations or formulas should represent the observations and not vice versa.
If you don't agree with this article that claims that relativity works locally and you also reject the clear observation, than it is your problem.
Galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light with the BBT or without the BBT.
For theory D this observation is good enough!!!


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 14:36:12
Our scientists clearly see/observe far end galaxies as they are moving faster than the speed of light!
You seem to be deliberately missing this

Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?





Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2020 15:42:08
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space. I only care about real observation.
Do you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?
If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.
So, please keep your ship in the sea. However, you have no authority to claim that it is forbidden for me to use this clear observation, while you use it in your BBT.
By doing so, you clearly position yourself as a BBT believer and not as honest scientist that only care about real science.

With regards to the Expansion in space:
The expansion in space can't be natural activity and therefore it is a severe contradiction to all physics law.
As you like the concept of Minkowski space-time, and you assume for space expansion, than why don't you also assume for time expansion?
Those idea are none naturals.
It seems to me that only god could set expansion in space or expansion in time.
This could also explain why you do not deal with the energy before the bang.
We all know that god can supply unlimited energy at any given moment.
So, if someone wants to show that god is involved in the creation of the Universe, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.
Actually, could it be that I miss something?
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?
If yes, then I'm really sorry for this interrupt. I have to ask for apology from all of you.
This could clearly explain your deep frustration from my thread.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 08/05/2020 16:04:51
The expansion in space can't be natural activity and therefore it is a severe contradiction to all physics law.
Wrong.
As you like the concept of Minkowski space-time, and you assume for space expansion, than why don't you also assume for time expansion?
No.
Those idea are none naturals.
Not talk good.
It seems to me that only god could set expansion in space or expansion in time.
This, like all your other ideas is silly.
This could also explain why you do not deal with the energy before the bang.
More silliness.
We all know that god can supply unlimited energy at any given moment.
I don't know that.
So, if someone wants to show that god is involved in the creation of the Universe, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.
Actually, could it be that I miss something?
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?
The silliness continues.
This could clearly explain your deep frustration from my thread.
This has already been explained, it is your willful ignorance that is frustrating. 
Your attempt provoke people in this post isn't frustrating, it is just pathetic trolling.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 17:14:06
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?
Nothing to do with it.

I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space. I only care about real observation.
Ships in seas and in space are real.

(So is the story of ships running backwards)
Do you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?
If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.
No.
Because you are saying they travel at 19 knots WRT the water but in fact they are traveling at 19 knots WRT the land.

It is a different statement.
The important difference is that your statement is not true.
I have to ask for apology from all of you.
You should do that regardless of anyone's view of God.
By doing so, you clearly position yourself as a BBT believer and not as honest scientist that only care about real science.
If I didn't care about real science, I wouldn't be using my time trying to correct you.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2020 19:23:48
Quote
Do you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?
If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.
No.
Really???
Did you read the following?
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."
What is the meaning of:
"how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light" or "it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light"

In any case, do you agree that based on the BBT far end galaxies are moving faster than the seed of light?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2020 19:45:42
moving faster than the seed of light?
From the point of view of the jellyfish, the seagull, or the harbourmaster?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 08/05/2020 20:43:56
In any case, do you agree that based on the BBT far end galaxies are moving faster than the seed of light?
Why do you keep asking the same question when you know that you will ignore the answer?
The answer is still no, the galaxies are not moving faster than light, just like the article states.
The part that you quoted always says galaxies "appear to be moving faster than light".  The article say 'appear', because they are not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying along the galaxies.

Now you will show us a little willful ignorance or say the scientists are wrong. 
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 08/05/2020 21:02:41
I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space.

This is a perfect example of why explanations are lost on you. Most anyone could see what Bored Chemist was trying to say with his ship analogy.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/05/2020 01:18:31
Why do you keep asking the same question when you know that you will ignore the answer?
The answer is still no, the galaxies are not moving faster than light, just like the article states.
The part that you quoted always says galaxies "appear to be moving faster than light".  The article say 'appear', because they are not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying along the galaxies.

Yes, your explanation was very clear to me
However, I have also found the following article about this issue:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/#3f837e2772a2
there's a critical distance where the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light: around a distance of 13-to-15 billion light-years. Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift. When we examine the sophisticated details of this relationship, we can unequivocally conclude that the "motion" explanation fails to match the data.
So, our scientists should know for sure that at a critical distance of 13-to-15 billion light-year, the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light.
I don't need more than that.
However, somehow you/they are positively sure that ONLY the BBT with its expansion in space can answer this phenomenon.
Therefore you claim for "appear to be moving faster than light"
So, if we discuss about the BBT, than this "appear to be moving faster than light" is real, while if we discuss on other theory than it is forbidden to use this "appear to be moving faster than light".
Is it real?
Do you think that only the BBT has royalties on the apparent recession speed of far end galaxies?
Actually, our scientists could estimate in 1917  (long before the BBT) that apparent recession of the far end galaxies will exceed the speed of light.
In this article they show that virgo at 78,000,000 Ly is moving away at 1,200 Km/s while hydra at 3,960,000,000 Ly is moving away at 61,000 Km/s.
They claim that this observation was "First noted by Vesto Slipher back in 1917"
Therefore, you don't need to be scientist in order to understand (in 1917) that as the galaxy is located further away its recession velocity should be higher.
Therefore, long before the BBT idea, our scientists could estimate that if our universe is big enough galaxies MUST have a recession velocity which is higher than the speed of light.
In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).
However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:
"when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored."

So, the relativity works at the same spatial location at the same moment in time.
However, if there are two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored.
" The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves."

In other words - at the far end (above 15 BLY) galaxies for sure are receding away faster than the speed of light.
If you are a BBT believer, than you can do so ONLY due to the expansion idea.
If you are not BBT believer, than you can do so due to different spacetime coordinates from one another.
Therefore, the location of different spacetime coordinates is very critical.
This fully meets the other article which highlighted that relativity works locally.
Therefore, we can't compare local activity at our current spacetime coordinates to different spacetime coordinates at the far away location
Hence, I have claimed that I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space (as long as they are located locally and I can still see them)
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:08
I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space.
This is a perfect example of why explanations are lost on you. Most anyone could see what Bored Chemist was trying to say with his ship analogy.
No, the ship analogy is valid only for local spacetime. We focus on different spacetime coordinates.
Therefore, this analogy is none relevant for our discussion!
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 02:53:37
Yes, your explanation was very clear to me
However, I have also found the following article about this issue:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/#3f837e2772a2
there's a critical distance where the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light: around a distance of 13-to-15 billion light-years. Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift. When we examine the sophisticated details of this relationship, we can unequivocally conclude that the "motion" explanation fails to match the data.
Yep, the article falsified your conjecture and supports the BBT.

I am a little puzzled why you would bring an article that says you are wrong though.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 03:24:44
Actually, our scientists could estimate in 1917  (long before the BBT) that apparent recession of the far end galaxies will exceed the speed of light.
That is false, you made that up.
When the recession velocity was first discovered they were not even sure there were other galaxies or if they were just looking at nebula.  Do you have a source that shows astronomers were talking about recession velocities greater than c in 1917?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2020 06:09:00
No, the ship analogy is valid only for local spacetime. We focus on different spacetime coordinates.

If you actually knew what "space-time coordinates" meant, you would realize your statement is meaningless because all objects are already at different space-time coordinates (except, perhaps, quantum objects because they don't have a well-defined location)..
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/05/2020 11:24:01
If you actually knew what "space-time coordinates" meant, you would realize your statement is meaningless because all objects are already at different space-time coordinates (except, perhaps, quantum objects because they don't have a well-defined location)..
Thanks.
So you claim that any object (except of...) already has a different space-time coordinates.
Therefore, you actually confirm the basic idea in that article that a far away galaxy should have its own different space-time coordinates.
Therefore, I don't see any contradiction between your explanation to the following article:
"when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored."
"The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves."

Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates

Now, let's see if I understand your key message:
You all claim that: "The part that you quoted always says galaxies "appear to be moving faster than light".  The article say 'appear', because they are not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying along the galaxies."
In other words, based on the BBT and the expansion theory, galaxies at the far end are not moving through space faster than the speed of light, but the space is expanding and carrying along those galaxies at a velocity faster than the speed of light.
So, based on the BBT galaxies are carried by the expansion in space at faster than the speed of light.
However, you insist that based on BBT those far end galaxies are not moving through space but they are carried at faster than the seed of light.
Therefore, due to the BBT it is forbidden to claim that they are moving though space at greater than the speed of light, but it is ok to claim that they are carried by expansion at faster than the speed of light.
Well, you actually band the physics law to support only your BBT theory.
Sorry - as you agree that galaxies are carried by expansion in space at faster than the speed of light, than by definition you have to agree that with regards to our point of view the recession velocity of those far end galaxies should be faster than the speed of light.
This doesn't contradict with the relativity.
I have already offered an article that relativity works locally.
So, at any local aria or relatively at close "space-time coordinates" we all agree that galaxies can't move faster than the speed of light with regards to each other.
However, at a very far away location (let's assume at 13-15 BLY away from us) the "space-time coordinates" of that location is quite different from our location. Therefore, the relative recession between one local "space-time coordinates" to the farther away "space-time coordinates" could be greater than the speed of light.
This doesn't contradicts the relativity as it works locally (I have already offered an article that supports this issue)
Therefore, due to relativity at each local space-time coordinates the galaxies can't move faster than the light.
Hence, I fully agree that galaxies can't move through space (or at their local space-time coordinates) at faster than the speed of light. However, two far away space-time coordinates could have a recession velocity which is faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, the expansion in space is not the ONLY ULTIMATE solution for the recession velocity but it could also be due to totally different space-time coordinates, relativity that works only locally, or even Abra cadabra.
As long as you agree that the recession velocity of far end galaxies could be faster than the speed of light, this is perfectly Ok for me.
I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.
So, please how do you dare to claim today that only the BBT can explain this recession velocity?
How can you forget the history so fast?
If your explanation about the expansion in space was correct, than why our scientists had to use the dark energy to overcome the gravity that should slow down that recession velocity?


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 11:41:43
Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates
That is a pop science article.  Pop science articles are dumbed down so that laymen can get a general gist of a scientific theory.  Apparently it was not dumbed down enough. 
As you wrote, quoting from the article:

Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding,

You can't try use an article to support your conjecture when it clearly contradicts it.  I mean, WTF?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 11:50:16
I am a little puzzled why you would bring an article that says you are wrong though.
I think the solution to that puzzle is that he didn't understand the article.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 11:50:43
I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.
Guess what, your highlight is totally wrong.
It was thought that the expansion was slowing down, but that still meant that the recession velocity increases with the  distance to a galaxy.  This is clearly explained in any decent article about expansion of the universe.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 11:53:00
Therefore, this analogy is none relevant for our discussion!
"Non" is not the same as "none".

And the analogy is relevant, it's just that you don't understand it.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 12:10:05
Well, I didn't know that.

"Vesto Melvin Slipher (/ˈslaɪfər/; November 11, 1875 – November 8, 1969) was an American astronomer who performed the first measurements of radial velocities for galaxies. He was the first to discover that distant galaxies are redshifted, thus providing the first empirical basis for the expansion of the universe.He was also the first to relate these redshifts to velocity."

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesto_Slipher

Now, if the rate of recession is roughly proportional to the distance, then two things can  be deduced from that.
If the universe is "big enough" then there will be things whose rate of recession should exceed C.
And the other thing you can deduce is that, if you "run the film backwards"  so to speak, you can find a point where all the universe was in the same place- a big bang.

The empirical data, over 100 years ago, showed that there was a big bang.

Yet Dave thinks this is evidence that there was no big bang.

Even without the "expansion" part of the BBT model, we need to account for relativity (for sufficiently distant objects).
One  idea that would have been reasonable at the time (there' wouldn't have been data to show it was wrong) would have been to say that the universe isn't old enough and big enough for it to be a problem.

Another would have been to point out that the recession velocities are not due to travel through space (which is limited to C) but to travel with space.

A bit like a ship with a top speed of 10 knots travelling between two ports 19 nm apart in  an hour because there was a 9 knot current.
A scientist thinking about this 100 years ago would have been perfectly happy with the second option.
Dave isn't, but nobody knows why.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 12:12:59
Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift.
I'm just quoting the bit where Dave says exactly the opposite of what he thinks he says, just in case anyone gets creative with editing.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2020 17:26:39
Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates

Another demonstration that you don't know what "different space-time coordinates" means.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/05/2020 19:04:34
You can't try use an article to support your conjecture when it clearly contradicts it.
No it doesn't
I have stated the following:
In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).
However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:
"when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored."
So, they clearly explain the expansion issue. But they also add the explanation about different space-time coordinates.
That is a pop science article
Well, it is clear to me by now that any article that not fully support your exact point of view is automatically - pop science.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:24:01
I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.
Guess what, your highlight is totally wrong.
It was thought that the expansion was slowing down, but that still meant that the recession velocity increases with the distance to a galaxy.
Yes, that is correct:
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos, so the question many asked was, just how much was the expansion slowing?
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
If you don't like that pop article, it is stated in the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
It was long thought that q was positive, indicating that the expansion is slowing down due to gravitational attraction. This would imply an age of the universe less than 1/H (which is about 14 billion years). For instance, a value for q of 1/2 (once favoured by most theorists) would give the age of the universe as 2/(3H). The discovery in 1998 that q is apparently negative means that the universe could actually be older than 1/H. However, estimates of the age of the universe are very close to 1/H.

So, until early 1990 our scientists were sure that the expansion is slowing down due to gravity. Therefore, they couldn't predict and they also didn't claim at that time that far end galaxies could have a recession velocity that is greater than the speed of light.
They were sure that the gravity is slowing down the expansion.
Therefore, they have offered one more imagination that is called dark energy.
So, the dark energy had to overcome on the gravity that was expected to slow down the expansion.
"To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."

So, this is one more confirmation that our scientists were sure that due to gravity the expansion should slow down.
Therefore, as the expansion didn't slow down (as expected) than our scientists can't claim today that ONLY the BBT can give explanation for the recession velocity.
To make it short:
1.Do you confirm that based on the BBT galaxies at the far end have a recession velocity which is faster that the speed of light?
2. Do you agree that in early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that the expansion is slowing down?

If you agree with that, than you have to agree that the far end galaxies have recession velocity that is greater than the speed of light with the BBT or without the BBT

Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates

Another demonstration that you don't know what "different space-time coordinates" means.

I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.
Sorry, you can't keep the recession of the far end galaxies only at the BBT pocket with or without the different space-time coordinates
The BBT has no royalties for that discovery especially as it was not expected by the BBT.
Therefore, you can't prevent from theory D to use this key element!!!!

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2020 21:06:51
I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.

Because a contradiction in an expectation does not necessarily equal a falsification of a theory, that's why. The Big Bang theory in itself does not require either an accelerating expansion or a decelerating expansion.

Sorry, you can't keep the recession of the far end galaxies only at the BBT pocket with or without the different space-time coordinates

Nor have I tried to. Even if the Big Bang theory had never been proposed, your model would still be wrong because it violates special relativity (you know very well that you have never read from any authoritative source that objects that are far apart are allowed to move through space relative to each other faster than light. The reason that you have never read any such thing is because it isn't true). Spatial expansion doesn't violate special relativity because nothing is actually moving through space faster than light. That is the subtle difference that you seem to be incapable of grasping.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2020 21:34:29
Therefore, you can't prevent from theory D to use this key element!!!!
Nobody really cares what you put into your idea (It's still not a theory)
It's still based on an error.
So it's still wrong.
Here's the error.

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
Since you started with a non sequitur, I stopped reading at this point.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 09/05/2020 22:25:24
Well, it is clear to me by now that any article that not fully support your exact point of view is automatically - pop science.
This is a pop science article, but it does support the exact mainstream view. 
You wrote:
In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).
However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:
First and foremost the article does not say or imply that relativity is 'overcome'.

So what is this REAL reason you are talking about?
The article states:

But when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored.

His explanation leaves a bit to be desired but this is for people with no science education so...
He says special relativity says that objects moving relative to one another cannot exceed c.  Good enough.  He then is saying that for different spacetime coordinates or objects like galaxies that are very far apart there is another factor.

So what is this factor?

The article states:
In addition to the special relativistic motion, which occurs relative to the spacetime coordinate you're presently occupying, there's also an effect that only shows up when you start thinking in terms of general relativity: the curvature and evolution of spacetime itself.

Ah, this other factor is general relativity.

The article continues:
Whereas special relativity only takes place in uncurved, static space, the real Universe has matter and energy in it. The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves. If you're in the vicinity of a large mass, like a star or a black hole, space will be curved so that you'll experience an acceleration towards that mass. This happens even in the absence of motion relative to the fabric of space itself; space is behaving like a flowing river or a moving walkway, dragging all objects along with it as it flows.

So as the article mentions multiple times the galaxies are not moving through space faster than c, the expansion is faster than c, and this an attempt clarify how general relativity is involved and this was misunderstood by you.  What a shock!

So the entire article supports the mainstream view of the BBT and says your conjecture is not possible.

So it is time for your almost superhuman willful ignorance to kick in and time for you to close your eyes and your mind to reality.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/05/2020 21:08:08
Thanks you all
I really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:04:34
I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.
Because a contradiction in an expectation does not necessarily equal a falsification of a theory, that's why.
Well, in engineering there is no room for contradiction.
Once you see and verify a contradiction, you set the theory in the garbage.
So, it is clear that astronomy and engineering works quite differently.
your model would still be wrong because it violates special relativity
I'm quite sure that it doesn't.
The special relativity is very clear to me. However, I have already offered you an article that highlights that relativity might works locally.

The Big Bang theory in itself does not require either an accelerating expansion or a decelerating expansion.
What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?
Is it Hubble law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
In the following article it is stated:
"Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model."
However, Hubble's law is based on the observation of galaxies that are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.
Therefore, this law tells us only about the galaxies expansions in space. It doesn't give any indication about the space expansion itself:
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance. In other words, the further they are the faster they are moving away from Earth. The velocity of the galaxies has been determined by their redshift, a shift of the light they emit to the red end of the spectrum"

Therefore, the assumption that we see/observe the expansion in space is totally wrong.
Our scientists have to say clearly that we only monitor the galaxies - not the space itself.

Therefore, The following statement is totally wrong:
"Today, in the context of general relativity, velocity between distant objects depends on the choice of coordinates used, and therefore, the redshift can be equally described as a Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) due to the expanding space, or some combination of the two."

How could they claim that "a Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) due to the expanding space" while they know for sure that this Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) is due to the expanding galaxies?
How they dare to change the expanding galaxies to expanding space?
This is a fatal lie.

They can tell us that they believe/hope/wish that this observation of expanding galaxies is due to expanding space.
However, when you read this article, you get a strong impression that they really measure the expanding space itself - and this is totally incorrect.

Therefore, Let's try to understand what is Hubble law:
"Hubble's law the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.
So, Hubble law is clearly related to expansion galaxies.
Therefore, the Hubble constant is also related to expansion galaxies
"Hubble constant is most frequently quoted in (km/s)/Mpc, thus giving the speed in km/s of a galaxy 1 megaparsec (3.09×1019 km) away, and its value is about 70 (km/s)/Mpc."
Therefore, Hubble constant Hubble gives excellent indication for the OBSERVED galaxies expansion in (km/s)/Mpc and its value is about 70 (km/s)/Mpc.
The question is - how can we explain this Observed galaxies expansion:
One option is by expansion in space as our scientists hope/wish.
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.
With both theories we get exactly the same result (Same Hubble constant – same Observable Universe).
Let's assume that we are located at point A
If we look at the horizon to one direction of our Universe we see galaxy B (at about 13BLY) with a recession velocity is almost the speed of light.
If we could jump over there, we should see in the same direction at the horizon galaxy C that is also moving almost at the speed of light.
In this way we can continue on and on to Galaxy D, E and F
To make it short.
A, B C D E F are located in one line
A see B at almost the speed of light
B see C at almost the Speed of Light and so on.

So, the Hubble constant is identical in Theory D and BBT, and both theories brings us to the same Universe -  Density, Observable, CMB (I will discuss about it later on)...
Why are you so sure that the BBT must win due to special relativity?


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2020 21:50:24
Well, in engineering there is no room for contradiction.
Once you see and verify a contradiction, you set the theory in the garbage.
So, it is clear that astronomy and engineering works quite differently.
Well... science is able to change a theory in lhe light of new evidence,
We learn.
If the same was true of engineering, we would not have cars. Nobody would have tried cars because they contradict the idea that you need a horse and cart.
I have already offered you an article that highlights that relativity might works locally.
And I have pointed out that relativity has ben demonstrated on an intergalactic scale.

What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?
All the relevant observations support the idea-.
That's why the idea is still around.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2020 21:59:17
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.
...which violates relativity.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 12/05/2020 01:46:24
Thanks you all
I really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.
Really? Then why don't you put in a little effort to cut back on the willful ignorance and self delusion?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2020 08:11:19
Two simple questions:

1.Do you confirm that the following information is correct:
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance. In other words, the further they are the faster they are moving away from Earth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?
So, Do you agree that Hubble's law / constant is all about galaxies expansion?
Hence, we do not observe the space expansion but we only observe/monitor the galaxies expansion?
2. Therefore, anyone who claims that we Observable/monitor the space expansion is a simple LIER?


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2020 08:50:58
In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?
yes

Do you agree that Hubble's law / constant is all about galaxies expansion?
No, it's about the expansion of space.
Hence, we do not observe the space expansion but we only observe/monitor the galaxies expansion?
What we see is the red shift of galaxies
What the clever people deduce from that is that the galaxies are moving.
what the very clever people deduce is that , because the apparent velocity exceeds C, it must be space itself that is expanding.
In much the same way that someone who sees a ship apparently  travelling faster than its top speed can deduce that there is a current.

Therefore, anyone who claims that we Observable/monitor the space expansion is a simple LIER?
No, they might be clever enough to understand what's happening at a slightly deeper level than you do.


BTW, the word is ""liar".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bobolink on 12/05/2020 12:16:49
One simple question:
Why do we keep feeding the troll? 
I'm done.  I might pop in from time to time to give a one word reply of 'wrong', but the as we all know, it is pointless to argue with a crank.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2020 12:31:14
Why do we keep feeding the troll? 
In case some unfortunate comes across this thread and thinks that, because it's on a respectable science site, it must be right.

It would be easier if the mods just closed down the most obvious cranks- at least the ones who really add nothing.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2020 05:24:21
In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?
yes
What we see is the red shift of galaxies
Thanks for the confirmation!
So, if you confirm that we observe the redshift of the galaxies, than why do you claim that we OBSERVE the space expansion.
Therefore, Do you agree that your following reply is wrong?
Quote
What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?
All the relevant observations support the idea-.
As we don't have any direct observation for space expansion.

What we see is the red shift of galaxies
What the clever people deduce from that is that the galaxies are moving.
what the very clever people deduce is that , because the apparent velocity exceeds C, it must be space itself that is expanding.
This kind of point of view is wrong. Let me offer an example of a car that is moving on the highway.
If clever people see that car they deduce that it is moving on the highway by its engine power.
However, based on your wrong point of view, very clever people should deduce that the car is not moving at all. We just think that it is moving due to the expansion in the highway.

Sorry, this is none realistic. What we see is what we have!
As we see the redshift of the galaxies, it proves that the galaxies are moving.
Again - the galaxies are moving - not the imaginary space.
Why do we need very cleaver scientists to change the reality?
What's wrong with cleaver scientists that are willing to accept the reality as is?
If they see an elephant, than it is an elephant and not an Ant.
If they see a moving car, than this car is moving.
If they see a moving galaxy, than this galaxy is moving.
Please - it's time for our very cleaver scientists to accept the observation as is!!!!
Theory D gives a perfect explanation for moving galaxies based on Hubble law & constant.
No need for imaginary ideas as space expansion.
It is directly based only on real Scientific_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[
In this long list of Scientific_law I couldn't find even one word about expansion in space or even just about expansion.
This idea is not part of any Scientific_law and therefore it is not real.
How any scientist who is using the name of science can justify any idea that is not directly based on Scientific_law?
Why do you reject a theory that fully meets all Scientific_laws including Hubble law for moving galaxy only due to relativity, while you have no problem to accept this imagination idea of space expansion that is absolutely not part of any scientific law?
If you carry the name of Scientific_law for nothing, then please do it for all.

With regards to relativity or Faster-than-light:
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/05/2020 21:08:08
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.
...which violates relativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
"According to the current scientific theories, matter is required to travel at slower-than-light (also subluminal or STL) speed with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region. "
So, they specifically claim - with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region.
A galaxy which is located at the horizon of the Universe couldn't considered as part of our locally distorted spacetime region.
Therefore, this far away galaxy could move faster than the speed of light relativity to our locally distorted spacetime region. However, it shouldn't move faster than the speed of light at its locally distorted spacetime region.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 13/05/2020 06:31:39
There's another way to tell if galaxies are moving through space or whether space is expanding between them. That is by looking at the relationship between the angular diameters of the galaxies and their distance from Earth. In a static, unchanging space, the average angular diameter of galaxies should always fall off the same way with distance. A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small. If space is expanding, however, this trend does not continue indefinitely. Instead, there will be a point where more distant galaxies will start to look larger (because the expansion of space will cause their images to enlarge). There is a graph with data on this page (the one that says "Luminosity Distance") that shows that this expansion of angular diameter is indeed what we see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4925877ecb5f

But I feel pretty certain that:

(1) Dave will not properly understand what this means, and
(2) he will find some way to pervert this information in order to claim that it doesn't actually support the notion of space expanding.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2020 17:49:20
In a static, unchanging space, the average angular diameter of galaxies should always fall off the same way with distance. A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small. If space is expanding, however, this trend does not continue indefinitely. Instead, there will be a point where more distant galaxies will start to look larger (because the expansion of space will cause their images to enlarge). There is a graph with data on this page (the one that says "Luminosity Distance") that shows that this expansion of angular diameter is indeed what we see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4925877ecb5f
Thanks Kryptid
This article is very interesting.
It is stated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4c714ee9cb5f
"The farther away we look, beyond a specific critical distance, objects actually appear larger the farther away they get. Even without gravitational lensing, the expanding Universe alone makes ultra-distant galaxies appear larger to our eyes."
However the expanding Universe is dedicated by Hubble law.
Please remember that based on Hubble law, we actually observe the redshift/expansion of the galaxies and not the space itself.
That Hubble law is the base for the expansion of galaxies in Theory D.
Therefore, as long as the expansion of galaxies in theory D meets Hubble law, the farther away Galaxies should be Magnified and appear larger to our eyes.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2020 18:38:38
Therefore, Do you agree that your following reply is wrong?
No
As we don't have any direct observation for space expansion.
We don't have any direct observation of atoms or even air but...
Who has seen the wind?
Neither I nor you:
But when the leaves hang trembling,
The wind is passing through.

Who has seen the wind?
Neither you nor I:
But when the trees bow down their heads,
The wind is passing by.


Science is allowed to use indirect observation and deduction.


Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 13/05/2020 22:03:22
Thanks Kryptid
This article is very interesting.
It is stated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4c714ee9cb5f
"The farther away we look, beyond a specific critical distance, objects actually appear larger the farther away they get. Even without gravitational lensing, the expanding Universe alone makes ultra-distant galaxies appear larger to our eyes."
However the expanding Universe is dedicated by Hubble law.
Please remember that based on Hubble law, we actually observe the redshift/expansion of the galaxies and not the space itself.
That Hubble law is the base for the expansion of galaxies in Theory D.
Therefore, as long as the expansion of galaxies in theory D meets Hubble law, the farther away Galaxies should be Magnified and appear larger to our eyes.

Yep, I was right. You didn't understand it!
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2020 22:17:22
If they see an elephant, than it is an elephant and not an Ant.
If they see a moving car, than this car is moving.
If they see a moving galaxy, than this galaxy is moving.
And if they see a moving ship...
They don't actually know if the engine is running- because it could be driven by tide, current, or wind.

But if they see a ship moving faster then the engine can drive it, they know that it must also have a following wind or it is running with the current.

Why are you finding this so hard to understand?

First simple question.
Do you think that relativity is right (i.e. you can't go faster than C), or do you think that all the measurements and tests done on it somehow failed?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2020 14:40:22
And if they see a moving ship...
They don't actually know if the engine is running- because it could be driven by tide, current, or wind.

However, if they see a ship moving faster than the engine can drive it, they know that it must also have a following wind or it is running with the current.
Why are you finding this so hard to understand?
Thanks for your great example.
It is all about Knowledge.
If you know that a ship or boat could carry a turbo jet engine boosted by rocket power, than you should know that it could lift itself over the water and fly at almost the speed of sound.
However, if you are an Indian living in America during the 15 century and see the mighty Spanish ships you might consider that you see the messenger of god.
Just to remind you that the Indians offered their daughters to those Spanish solders that were riding on a mighty animal that we called horse.
So, the Indians had no idea about ships or horses. Therefore, they have started to pray to those Spanish solders.
Could it be that our scientists behave as those Indian in the 15 century?
When our scientists saw for the first time the ultra high velocity of the far end galaxies they were very puzzled.
Therefore, they have adopted the BBT theory and start thinking about space expansion.
This is very normal. At that time they didn't had a clue about the cutting edge technology of rocket galaxies.
Therefore, they have believed in the BBT.
However, today with the most advanced knowledge of the rocket galaxies we know why the far end galaxies are moving at those ultra high velocities.
It is very natural.
It took the Indians only few years to understand the those Spanish solders aren't God messengers.
How long it should take our scientists to understand that the BBT isn't a theory from god and there is a simple explanation for our universe?
The rocket galaxies knowledge is very simple and natural.
We know that it is so simple to carry a boat at the speed of sound by the most advanced rockets.
No need for tide, wind or current.
No need for BBT, space expansion dark matter or dark energy.

First simple question.
Do you think that relativity is right (i.e. you can't go faster than C), or do you think that all the measurements and tests done on it somehow failed?
Relativity is correct. However. it only works locally.
In the article it is stated clearly -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
"According to the current scientific theories, matter is required to travel at slower-than-light (also subluminal or STL) speed with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region. "
So, they specifically claim - with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region.
Why is it so difficult for all of you to understand that simple idea
Relativity works locally!!!!
Yep, I was right. You didn't understand it!
I read again the following article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#461f31b5cb5f
Not even a single word about space expansion.
They clearly discuss about galaxies expansions (I have found 15 times the word - galaxies).
So, please, why are you so sure that it is not about galaxies expansion but about space expansion?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 14/05/2020 16:43:09
So, please, why are you so sure that it is not about galaxies expansion but about space expansion?

Because I actually understand it. I will explain it one time and one time only. If you don't get it after that, then too bad. Light takes time to travel through space. The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding. That extra spread makes distant galaxies look larger than they would if space was not expanding. If the galaxies were simply moving away from us and space was not expanding, then the apparent size of those galaxies would always be smaller the further away from us they are.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 17:33:33
The rocket galaxies knowledge is very simple and natural.
And wrong, because it violates relativity.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 17:39:45
Relativity is correct. However. it only works locally.
In reality, relativity has been demonstrated to work on an intergalactic scale.
You are wrong. I already explained this to you.
Why don't you take it on board?

Why is it so difficult for all of you to understand that simple idea
Relativity works locally!!!!
Because the observations show that it works on a huge - at least intergalactic- scale.

Why can't you accept this fact?
I read again the following article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#461f31b5cb5f
Not even a single word about space expansion.
Keep reading it until you spot these.

"Do ancient galaxies appear larger to us than they really were, due to the expansion of the Universe? If so, then by how much?"
"the Universe itself is expanding,"
" regardless of the Universe's expansion. A wide suite of evidence supports this cosmic picture, but this ever-changing expansion rate aff..."

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 17:43:02
Thanks for your great example.
It is all about Knowledge.
If you know that a ship or boat could carry a turbo jet engine boosted by rocket power, than you should know that it could lift itself over the water and fly at almost the speed of sound.
Yes, so if you saw it travelling above the speed of sound- i.e. at more than its top speed, you would know that it was being carried along by something else.
It doesn't matter what the top speed is, or what sort of engine it has , what matters is that it can't go faster than the top speed.
That's what "top" means in this context.
Did you not understand that?
Thanks for making  my point for me
The stuff about indians seems... let's say "confused".
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 17:45:26
Not even a single word about space expansion.
They clearly discuss about galaxies expansions (I have found 15 times the word - galaxies).
I didn't see any mention of the expansion of galaxies. Just lots of talk about an expanding universe.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 18:00:13
Incidentally, do you understand that magnify does not mean the same as expand?
One means to make something look bigger the other means to make it actually bigger.

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/05/2020 17:05:11
The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.
Yes, your message is very clear.
However, I still don't understand why do you insist that only the expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.
Do you agree that the expansion in space can't generate even one photon of light?
Actually, we have already agreed that we can't see any expansion in space. We only see the expansion in galaxies.
So, why is it so important to assume that the expansion in galaxies is due to the space expansion and not due to the expansion in galaxies?
Without galaxies, it is clear that we won't get any sort of photon of light.
So, all the photons are ejected from the galaxies.
Therefore, in any sort of theory, we should agree that we monitor the photons that had been ejected from the galaxy itself and not from the space expansion.
Actually the only key difference between the two theories is that in the space expansion theory - the space itself carry the galaxies, while in the galaxies expansion theory - the galaxies are moving though the space.
Please also remember that both theories fully meet Hubble law and constant.
In the article they even give an example of the following galaxy:
"It might surprise you to learn that the most distant galaxy we've ever observed, GN-z11, actually appears twice as large as a similarly sized galaxy that's only half the distance away from us. The farther away we look, beyond a specific critical distance, objects actually appear larger the farther away they get."
So, our scientists clearly verify that far away galaxy as it is expanding away from us at ultra high velocity. However, not even one word about expansion in space.
Hence, why are you so sure that if this galaxy was expensing away exactly at its current velocity and holding exactly the same features that we observe, its photons of light shouldn't get spread further apart if it was moving through the space??
In other words - If this galaxy is moving through the space - its photons of light shouldn't get spread further apart
While if it is carried by the space expansion than its photons of light should get spread further apart.
Can you please prove this statement?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2020 18:23:16
We only see the expansion in galaxies.
No. Galaxies are gravitationally bound. They don't expand.
What we see is an expansion of teh space between the galaxies.


Without galaxies, it is clear that we won't get any sort of photon of light.
No. That isn't clear at all.
In fact it's wrong.
We got lots of photons from the formation of hydrogen in the early hot dense universe.
So, all the photons are ejected from the galaxies.
No; see above
Therefore, in any sort of theory, we should agree that we monitor the photons that had been ejected from the galaxy itself and not from the space expansion.
Nobody said the photoones were "ejected... from the space expansion."
You made that up.

Please also remember that both theories fully meet Hubble law and constant.
Please remember that one of them breaches relativity.
So, our scientists clearly verify that far away galaxy as it is expanding away from us at ultra high velocity. However, not even one word about expansion in space.
OK, so you didn't understand it.
The reason why it looks twice as big is that the expansion of space acts a bit like a magnifying glass.



So, our scientists clearly verify that far away galaxy as it is expanding away from us at ultra high velocity. However, not even one word about expansion in space.
And not a single word about what they had for breakfast that day, because you don't include obvious or irrelevant stuff in every paragraph.

In other words - If this galaxy is moving through the space - its photons of light shouldn't get spread further apart
While if it is carried by the space expansion than its photons of light should get spread further apart.
Can you please prove this statement?
That's the wrong way of looking at it.
We see that the galaxy is oddly magnified.
If the light is just travelling through space, why would the photons be spread out in this way (in addition to the inverse square law)?
One alternative that makes sense is that teh expanding universe is responsible (among other things) for the incongruous large size of this galaxy.

Do you have a sensible altarnative explanation?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 15/05/2020 23:51:12
Yes, your message is very clear.

If it was clear, then why didn't you understand it? If you did, you wouldn't say ridiculous things like:

Do you agree that the expansion in space can't generate even one photon of light?
Hence, why are you so sure that if this galaxy was expensing away exactly at its current velocity and holding exactly the same features that we observe, its photons of light shouldn't get spread further apart if it was moving through the space??

You don't understand even the most basic forms of logic. Maybe go watch a car driving away from you and see if it looks like it's getting larger or smaller with distance.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2020 06:19:22
Maybe go watch a car driving away from you and see if it looks like it's getting larger or smaller with distance.
This issue is very clear to me as you have already explained.
In a static, unchanging space, the average angular diameter of galaxies should always fall off the same way with distance. A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small.
There is no need to prove the above statement
However, with regards to the following statement:
The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.
and
The reason why it looks twice as big is that the expansion of space acts a bit like a magnifying glass.
Your messages are very clear. However, how it really works?
The explanation is:
That extra spread makes distant galaxies look larger than they would if space was not expanding.
This is something that you need to prove.
Actually, did you read the following answer from Bored chemist:
No. Galaxies are gravitationally bound. They don't expand.
What we see is an expansion of teh space between the galaxies.

Therefore, the space expansion carry/move the galaxies with it, however it doesn't set any sort of expansion on the galaxy itself. ("They don't expand.")
Therefore, the following statement might not be correct: "The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart".
How the the expansion of space itself could cause the photons of light from far away galaxy to get spread further apart while it has no impact on the galaxy itself?  (The galaxy don't expand due to the expansion in space)
Please prove that statment.
We see that the galaxy is oddly magnified.
If the light is just travelling through space, why would the photons be spread out in this way (in addition to the inverse square law)?
One alternative that makes sense is that teh expanding universe is responsible (among other things) for the incongruous large size of this galaxy.

Do you have a sensible altarnative explanation?
Sure, I have a very simple explanation for that.
It is not due to the space expansion or galaxy expansion.
Please forget the expansion!
It is all about the paths of light, as affected by black hole curvature.
https://galileospendulum.org/2011/06/29/black-holes-dont-suck/
It is stated that:
Outside the event horizon, paths of light are curved by the black hole’s gravity, but the light can continue on its merry way;
So, the BH acts a bit like a magnifying glass with its ability to spread apart the photons of light.
There are many BH in our universe.
However, if we look at a relativity close distance, the chance that the light would cross a BH is quite low.
Therefore, at a relatively low distance we see that A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small.
However, as we look further away, the light is deflected by more and more BHs.
Therefore, the light from the furthest galaxy is getting deflected by the maximal no of BHs.
Therefore, we see it so big.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 16/05/2020 06:22:42
Remember when I said I was only going to explain it once? That was it.

If you had an understanding of basic physics, you would realize why a group of photons is not bound in the same way as the stars in a galaxy are.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2020 11:08:38
If you had an understanding of basic physics, you would realize why a group of photons is not bound in the same way as the stars in a galaxy are.
I have quite good knowlage in physics, but I still don't understand how the expansion of space itself causes group of photons of light of far end galaxy to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.
We know clearly that the expansion has no impact on the real size of any galaxy in the Universe. It only expands the space between the galaxies.
So, please, how the expansion between the galaxies in the Universe could cause that group of photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding?
If you claim something, you need to prove it.
I have offered much better explanation for that phenomenon.
It is not based on my imagination. It is real:
https://www.space.com/8830-massive-black-hole-bends-light-magnify-distant-galaxy.html
Massive Black Hole Bends Light to Magnify Distant Galaxy
"A giant black hole spouting energy from inside a galaxy isacting like a cosmic magnifying glass, giving astronomers a clear view of an evenmore distant galaxy behind it."
Why do you reject the proved physics explanation for Black Hole that Bends Light to Magnify Distant Galaxy, while you insist that only the expansion can do it (without any physics backup).
Remember when I said I was only going to explain it once? That was it.
I'm ready to accept any real explanation/data/information in the first message. However, please do not assume that I will accept any sort of information without real physics backup.
Sorry, it is our scientists' obligation to use real physics in order to show/prove how the expansion in space could Magnify Distant Galaxy?

Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2020 12:11:58
Therefore, we see it so big.
Except that's not what you see with gravitational lensing.
You typically see a ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

And that phenomenon is quite rare- it has to be lined up properly.
But all very distant objects appear bigger than they should.

So what you are saying is that every very distant galaxy has a perfectly sized and aligned black hole in between us and them, so that it appears magnified.

That's absurd, and I did ask for a sensible explanation, not a magic one.


I have quite good knowlage in physics
Why don't you use it?
It would have made this thread so much shorter.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2020 19:49:54
Except that's not what you see with gravitational lensing.
You typically see a ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
And that phenomenon is quite rare- it has to be lined up properly.
Yes, I fully agree with you.
I have used the idea of BH in order to show that it could Bend Light to Magnify Distant Galaxy.
It is stated:
"An Einstein ring, also known as an Einstein–Chwolson ring or Chwolson ring, is created when light from a galaxy or star passes by a massive object en route to the Earth. Due to gravitational lensing, the light is diverted, making it seem to come from different places. If source, lens, and observer are all aligned, the light appears as a ring."
So, if we use one massive BH it would set a ring.
However, if we will use less massive object as a star it should set a minor bend in the photon of light.
Therefore, in order to get real Magnify of Distant Galaxy we need much more than just one star.
Surprisingly, there is unlimited no. of stars (and BH) in the space between galaxies:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/most-of-stars-and-planets-in-universe.html
 "As many as half of all stars in the universe lie in the vast gulfs of space between galaxies, an unexpected discovery made in a new study using NASA rockets."
So, for any star in the galaxy, there is one outside.
Just think about the density of the stars in the space between the galaxies.
Therefore, as we look at a far away galaxy (at any direction) there is good chance that the photon of light need to cross several thousand or even millions of objects as stars or BH.
Those objects magnify the light from Distant Galaxy.
The further the galaxy is located, the more objects the photon of light should cross.
Therefore, the most distant galaxy gets the maximal lights magnify.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2020 19:59:56
OK, what you are now saying is that a bucket of broken glass will act as a magnifying glass.
Your ideas get sillier every day.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 16/05/2020 20:22:31
Therefore, at a relatively low distance we see that A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small.
However, as we look further away, the light is deflected by more and more BHs.
Therefore, the light from the furthest galaxy is getting deflected by the maximal no of BHs.

Ha ha ha, wow! This may be just the most desperate ploy of yours I've seen yet.

I have quite good knowlage in physics

A statement that has been continually demonstrated to be wrong.

but I still don't understand how the expansion of space itself causes group of photons of light of far end galaxy to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding.

Ah, so you don't understand physics (or even basic logic) as well as you think you do. Are you serious? You really don't understand why an expanding space will cause objects in that space that aren't bound to each other to spread out? What in the world you think the words "expand" and "spread" mean?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2020 05:33:13
Ah, so you don't understand physics (or even basic logic) as well as you think you do. Are you serious? You really don't understand why an expanding space will cause objects in that space that aren't bound to each other to spread out?

Yes I fully understand why the galaxies are expanding/spread out from each other.

However, this is not the issue in our discussion. We discuss about expanding/spreading the light of each galaxy.
What in the world you think the words "expand" and "spread" mean?

Would you kindly advice if you agree with the following:
1. The expansion in the space doesn't expands or spread any individual galaxy in the whole Universe?
2. The expansion in space only expands the space between the galaxies?

If you agree with the above, would you kindly explain how the physics works at the expansion in space theory in order to expand/spread the light of far away galaxy, without expanding/spreading the galaxy itself?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 17/05/2020 05:40:42
If you agree with the above, would you kindly explain how the physics works at the expansion in space theory in order to expand/spread the light of the galaxy, without expanding/spreading the galaxy itself?

The answer is in reply #368.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2020 05:46:24
If you had an understanding of basic physics, you would realize why a group of photons is not bound in the same way as the stars in a galaxy are.

Would you kindly explain how a group of photons of far away galaxy that its size is fixed (no internal expansion or spreading over time) could expand/spread only based on the expansion in the space between the galaxies.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 17/05/2020 05:48:56
Would you kindly explain how a group of photons of far away galaxy that its size is fixed (no internal expansion or spreading over time) could expand/spread only based on the expansion in the space between the galaxies.

I honestly cannot believe you are asking me that question. Hmm, I wonder... how could expansion cause a group of objects that aren't bound to each other to spread out? What a mystery!
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2020 06:22:29
I honestly cannot believe you are asking me that question. Hmm, I wonder... how could expansion cause a group of objects that aren't bound to each other to spread out? What a mystery!
We claim that the galaxy itself are not affected by the expansion of space.
So, the size of the galaxy is fixed and all the objects in the galaxy are bounded by gravity
Therefore, we can't consider it as a group of objects that aren't bound to each other.
Therefore, HOW the expansion in space between the galaxies could expand the light that is coming from a fixed size far away galaxy?
Please, do you have an answer or not?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 17/05/2020 06:45:58
Therefore, HOW the expansion in space between the galaxies could expand the light that is coming from a fixed size far away galaxy?
Please, do you have an answer or not?

Are photons bound to each other? Think about the answer to that question and you'll have the answer to the question that you've given me.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/05/2020 10:08:11
Therefore, HOW the expansion in space between the galaxies could expand the light that is coming from a fixed size far away galaxy?
Please, do you have an answer or not?

Are photons bound to each other? Think about the answer to that question and you'll have the answer to the question that you've given me.
I think it's slightly subtler than that.
Are the photons bound to the galaxies?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/05/2020 18:07:29
Are photons bound to each other? Think about the answer to that question and you'll have the answer to the question that you've given me.
Dear Kryptid

We know each other for quite long time.
It is very clear to me that you fully support the BBT and protect whatever our scientists claim.
However, at this discussion, they have a severe mistake.
Therefore, let me explain why I positively sure that the expansion in space can't magnify the light from far end galaxy.
Actually, it should do the opposite.
So, let's assume that we have a light detector that is aimed on a far end galaxy.
Its mission is to detect photons that the beam of light carries from that far end galaxy.
Let's also assume that there are no expansion in space and no massive objects.
Hence, based on the size of the detector and its sensitivity it can detect x no of photons from this far end galaxy.
Now, let's see the impact of the following:
1. Massive objects - The massive objects acts as a glass. It bends the beam of light
Therefore, more photons of light get to our detector. This activity magnifies that far end galaxy.
2. Expansion in space -
With regards to your question: Are photons bound to each other. The answer is: no.
The expansion in space actually separate/expand the photons from each other. Therefore, less photons get to our detector. The outcome is the opposite from magnify.
So, the expansion in space should reduce the no of photons of light that the detector gets from the far end galaxy.

Therefore, I wonder how it could be that our scientists claim that the expansion in space could increase the light from a far end galaxy.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2020 18:20:08
Therefore, I wonder how it could be that our scientists claim that the expansion in space could increase the light from a far end galaxy.
Because they understand that "brightness" is different from "size".

More photons reaching the detector is a brighter image, not a bigger one.

Therefore, less photons get to our detector.
OK, ask a photographer what happens to the brightness of an image when you magnify the image by using a longer lens (of the same diameter) .

Brighter images mean smaller images.

So, you simply don't understand what is a really simple idea.

Get a piece of rubber sheeting, draw a picture of a galaxy on it.
Stretch the rubber sheet.
The picture gets bigger.

How do you not understand that?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 19/05/2020 20:52:17
It is very clear to me that you fully support the BBT and protect whatever our scientists claim.

The Big Bang theory seems to be the best thing we have at the moment. It may still have flaws (although not any that you've pointed out. Your arguments are all based on straw-men), and it's always possible that a better theory will be developed in the future.

Therefore, I wonder how it could be that our scientists claim that the expansion in space could increase the light from a far end galaxy.

Bored Chemist explained it. You have, once again, straw-manned the argument.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2020 21:33:19
It is very clear to me that you fully support the BBT and protect whatever our scientists claim.
There's nothing special about Kryptis or me.
It's not us supporting the BBT.
We couldn't do that.

The evidence, on the other hand, can, and does, support it.

You need to recognise that it isn't the people posting here that you disagree with.
You are picking an argument with reality.

There's only one way that ends.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2020 04:26:17
Get a piece of rubber sheeting, draw a picture of a galaxy on it.
Stretch the rubber sheet.
The picture gets bigger.
Thanks for your excellent example.
So, we have a picture of a galaxy on a rubber sheet (or universe).
We have already found that the size of the universe after the inflation was 10,000Ly
After 13 BY the observable universe had been expanded to 96 BLY.
Therefore, based on the idea a rubber sheet, a picture of the 10,000 Ly of the whole early universe had been stretched after 13BY to much bigger picture at a size of 96BLY.
Based on this key understanding, let's go back to the picture of a far end galaxy at a size of 10,000Ly which is located at a distance of 13BLY away.
Let's assume that there is a galaxy at the size of 10,000 Ly at a distance of 13 BLY.
Let's also assume that based on the size of our light detector on earth (without the expansion impact) we should detect 10,000 photons from this far end galaxy.
However, due to the expansion, it is clear that the picture of this galaxy (on a rubber universe) should stretch significantly.

Just to understand the impact of the expansion on the rubber sheet.
We start with a picture of a galaxy at a radius of 10,000Ly and we end after 13 BY at much bigger picture at a size of 96BLY
The ratio is : 10 to 96 * 10^6, or 1 : 9,600,000
If we want to make it easy we can assume that the ratio is:
1: 10,000,000
So, the picture of the far away galaxy gets bigger by 10,000,000 times due to the stretch of the expansion in space.

However, the size of our detector is fixed.
Therefore, as the picture of the galaxy gets bigger, less photons gets to our light detector.

Remember the following message:
Let's also assume that based on the size of our light detector on earth (without the expansion impact) we should detect 10,000 photons from this far end galaxy.
Now due to the expansion in the picture of the far end galaxy, we get in our detector only one photon instead of 10,000,000
Therefore, with this ration, we should get 0.001 photon from the far end galaxy (instead of 10,000 photons without the expansion)
Therefore, it is clearly that we can't detect this galaxy at all.

Conclusions -
As the picture of the far end galaxy gets bigger due to the expansion in space, less photons gets to our limited size detector in the Earth. Therefore, after a stretch of almost 10,000,000 times, we shouldn't detect any photon of light from a far end galaxy.
However, as we clearly see so many galaxies from the far end universe, it proves that there is no expansion in space!!!
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 20/05/2020 05:51:00
Let's also assume that based on the size of our light detector on earth (without the expansion impact) we should detect 10,000 photons from this far end galaxy.

Very, very bad assumption. You really are hopeless.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2020 09:47:47
Remember the following message:
Let's also assume that based on the size of our light detector on earth (without the expansion impact) we should detect 10,000 photons from this far end galaxy.
Now due to the expansion in the picture of the far end galaxy, we get in our detector only one photon instead of 10,000,000
Therefore, with this ration, we should get 0.001 photon from the far end galaxy (instead of 10,000 photons without the expansion)
Therefore, it is clearly that we can't detect this galaxy at all.

You have just worked out why we need big telescopes and long exposures to take these pictures.
That's OK, we have big telescopes and take long exposures.

Why do you see this as a problem?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2020 17:34:19
You have just worked out why we need big telescopes and long exposures to take these pictures.
That's OK, we have big telescopes and take long exposures.
Why do you see this as a problem?

It isn't an issue of the size of the telescopes or the exposure time.
We can use any telescope that we wish.
However, the expansion in space should decrease the detected intensity of light from any far away galaxy.

The explanation is as follow:
https://www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_intensity_decrease_with_the_square_of_the_distance_from_a_point_source
Why does the intensity decrease with the square of the distance from a point source?
Intensity of light is defined as energy per unit area. As we move away from the light point source, the area over which the energy of light distributes is generally spherical or hemispherical. The area of a sphere or hemisphere increases proportional to the square of radius, where the radius in this case is the distance from the point source. Thus Intensity of light, which is inversely proportional to area, decreases with the square of distance.
Now, with regards to the expansion in space –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
 "The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time"
Therefore, due to the expansion in space, it should take longer time for the light to get to our telescope or light detector.
That increasing time is equal to increasing distance or radius.
If we eliminate the impact of the expansion in space, it is clear that a galaxy that is located at a distance/radius of 1 BLY should take exactly 1By to get to our light detector.
However, due to the expansion it should take it significantly longer time.
Longer time (at the speed of light) means longer radius.
So, the expansion in space is actually increasing the radius over time due to the expansion process.
We already know that the intensity of light, which is inversely proportional to area, decreases with the square of distance/radius.
In other words, the expansion in space is increasing the radius over time and in the same token it is also decreasing the intensity of light from a far away galaxy.
Therefore, how could you both support a theory which fully contradicts clear science law???
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2020 17:54:15
However, the expansion in space should decrease the detected intensity of light from any far away galaxy.

Nobody cares about the intensity.
That is not what defines the size of something.


Does your house get  smaller when it's only lit by the moon?

If the source isn't bright enough to see properly then, as I said, you can use a bigger telescope, or a longer exposure time.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2020 16:31:10
Nobody cares about the intensity.
That is not what defines the size of something.
Does your house get  smaller when it's only lit by the moon?
If the source isn't bright enough to see properly then, as I said, you can use a bigger telescope, or a longer exposure time.
The article actually confirms my understanding:
It is stated:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#586dda7cb5fc
If we had an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the angular scale would get progressively smaller in a quantitatively different fashion, but the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
So, they clearly claim that in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
In all my explanations I have only focused on a Universe with nothing but matter in it.
However, they also add the following:
But what we actually have is a Universe filled with dark energy, the angular scale does something very different. The farther away you look, the same-sized object looks smaller and smaller, but only to a point. Beyond that point, that object will actually start to look bigger again."
So, it is not the expansion in space activity that makes a further away galaxy to look as a bigger sized one, but it is due to the dark energy that is responsible for that activity.
I hope that we all agree with that!!!
If so, you all have to accept the idea that the expansion in space doesn't contribute any impact on the size of the far end galaxy
It is all about dark energy.
Now we need to understand how the dark energy works.
In this article they don't offer any indication how the dark energy increases the image of a far away galaxy.
Actually, the only relevant information about the dark energy is as follow:
"In the Universe we actually have — which is composed of 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, 5% normal matter and about 0.01% radiation — you can determine that objects will appear smaller the farther away they get, but then the physics of the expanding Universe magnifies them once again the farther away you look."
However, they don't give any explanation how the dark matter really works in order to make a far end galaxy to looks bigger.
At the end they come back again to the expansion Universe:
"Even without gravitational lensing, the expanding Universe alone makes ultra-distant galaxies appear larger to our eyes."

Conclusions:
There is a severe contradiction in this article.
In one hand it is stated clearly that the expansion in space by itself in a Universe with only real matter won't be able to increase the image of a far end galaxy.
Then it is stated that only the dark matter can do it, while they don't offer any real explanation for that assumption.
At the end they come back to the idea of universe expansion.

Sorry - as they didn't offer any explanation about the impact of the dark energy, than this article is actually none relevant!!!
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2020 18:02:26
So, it is not the expansion in space activity that makes a further away galaxy to look as a bigger sized one, but it is due to the dark energy that is responsible for that activity.
I hope that we all agree with that!!!
I don't know  if you agree with it.
Do you understand that what the dark energy does is make the rate of expansion variable?
(That wouldn't happen in a universe with just matter in it)
In doing so it creates a universe where more expansion (in early epochs makes) the apparent size of things dependent on distance.
Do you understand that?
More distant things are older, so the images of them have had more time for the space to be stretched. So they are stretched out more, so they look bigger.
Do you understand that?

What you have said is analogous to "it's not acceleration that makes a car go faster, it's the engine".
Well, yes and no. But it shows that you don't  understand how it works.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2020 19:11:45
Do you understand that what the dark energy does is make the rate of expansion variable?
Is there a possibility for expansion without dark energy?

However, what do you understand from the following statement?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#586dda7cb5fc
If we had an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the angular scale would get progressively smaller in a quantitatively different fashion, but the farther away you looked, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
Do you agree that:

they clearly claim that in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."
I really don't understand the logic.
If "what the dark energy does is make the rate of expansion variable" than why they claim that "in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."

Does it mean that if the rate of expansion is not variable than the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object?
So, only if rate of expansion is variable we actually observe that the further galaxy looks bigger?
Can you explain/prove how this phenomenon works?
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2020 23:04:45
Is there a possibility for expansion without dark energy?
Yes.
"Do you agree that:..."
Yes.

If "what the dark energy does is make the rate of expansion variable" than why they claim that "in an expanding Universe with nothing but matter in it, the same-sized object would always look smaller than a closer version of the same object."

Because a universe with only matter in it is different from a universe with matter and also dark energy.

Like a pizza with cheese and ham is different from a pizza with only cheese.


I really don't understand the logic.
You just told everyone that you are not clever enough to work in a fast food joint.
You previously implied you were an engineer.
I know which I believe.
Title: Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2020 04:56:59