0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I agree, any theory should start from a starting point that is ZERO.I assume that the BBT also starts from Zero.

Just think about infinite space without even one single particle or energy.

Let's assume that you have just arrived to our planet.You have full knowledge about all the physics law (Newton, thermodynamics...) but you don't know anything about the theories of our Universe.You have never heard about the BBT or about theory-D.We will go step by step from that Zero time (while there was nothing in the whole universe)

Once upon a time, our universe was totally free from any sort of mass.

It was infinite space without even a single particle or quark.

However, let's assume that something came out of this nothing.

We can't explain you how exactly that happened.

My first question is simple:As a fair judgment - what kind of starting point is more logical:1. The BBT Theory: With everything out of nothing and all the requested theories?

2. Theory-D: Just Something out of nothing without any other special request. No Inflation, No space expansion, no first second, no dark matter, dark energy or magic powder. What we see in our universe is what we have.?

You don't know that. Maybe it still is. If you add all the positive and negative mass/energy, it seems to add up to zero still. That would be very much in keeping with thermodynamic law.

1. Do you claim that based on the BBT all the mass of the Universe was already there before the Big bang, in order to keep with thermodynamic law?

2. What kind of matter/particles was there in the early Universe? Can we assume: Protons, electrons. Neutrons, quarks...?

3. Can we also assume that the entire early Universe was covered with those particles at the same density?

4. What was the size of that early Universe?

Can we assume that it was infinite?

6. You have mentioned the idea of: "positive and negative mass/energy". So do you mean that if we add all the positive and negative mass/energy of the early universe we should get zero?

7. If that is the case, why all the negative and positive mass/energy in the early universe didn't transformed into nothing before the big bang?

8. What about our current universe? If we add all the negative and positive would we get zero universe (without any mass) even today?

9. Why do we need the Big bang if all the mass of the Universe was there before the Big bang?

10. why all the particles of the early Universe had not been formed into real Atoms before the Big bang?

11. How could it be that a big bang will be everywhere at the same moment?

12. Is it realistic? Can we set a bang in the infinite early Universe? How can we agree with that none realistic idea?

14. What was the energy source for the Big bang? How do we know that there is no violation for thermodynamics law just based on that big bang?

15. Why the Big bang had increased the temp of the early Universe?

If the Big bang was everywhere at the same moment, than do you agree that after the BBT the temp should go up everywhere?

17. Did you try to prove the BBT by thermodynamics law/calculations/temp?

QuoteCan we assume that it was infinite?Nobody knows this.

If the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?), then there is nowhere in that small super-hot space that isn't 'banging'. The theory does not posit that a bang happened at one point and stuff subesequently expanded into existing space. The event is indefinite compression of all of space itself.

The big bang theory does not posit a bang happening somewhere in infinite space. It concerns all of space (everywhere) being not very much and expanding from there, as it is still doing.

I'm going to stop answering all the before-the-big-bang questions which are not relevant to the theory

So, I really can't understand how you try to give us an explanation for a universe which you don't know its size.If you don't know its size - your theory is just irrelevant!!!

I didn't get an answer for the source of that infinite energy that is requested to that kind of Big Bang.

You are using this thermodynamics law in order to disqualify the Theory-D, while you give yourself a waiver for the BBT theory.

Why do you insist that the first thermodynamics law should not work at the excretion disc although it is clear that there is so much extra energy there

Then your explanation must be irrelevant too, since you also don't know the size of the Universe. You have no way of measuring its true size

Sure, you can create new subatomic particles,

The Big Bang theory doesn't require any violation of thermodynamic laws. There is no reason that the energy and mass present at the Big Bang should be any different than the amount present in the modern Universe.

I'm leading several engineering design teams.

A theory for a Universe with a radius of 13.8 BLY can't be the same as for an infinite Universe.

If I recall it correctly, when the BBT Idea came to our life, our scientists were quite sure that what we see is what we have. So, the Universe was quite compact.

Therefore, the idea was that the big bang took place at a singular location.

At the first step they have found that the size of the observable universe is:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe"The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years"After this discovery they have changed the BBT.

However, now some of our scientists start to understand that the Universe might be infinite.So, how can you adjust a theory for compact Universe to infinite universe?

One option is to claim:Quote from: HalcIf the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?), then there is nowhere in that small super-hot space that isn't 'banging'. The theory does not posit that a bang happened at one point and stuff subsequently expanded into existing space. The event is indefinite compression of all of space itself.However, that answer is based on "If the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?)"

If the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?), then there is nowhere in that small super-hot space that isn't 'banging'. The theory does not posit that a bang happened at one point and stuff subsequently expanded into existing space. The event is indefinite compression of all of space itself.

Quote from: HalcThe big bang theory does not posit a bang happening somewhere in infinite space. It concerns all of space (everywhere) being not very much and expanding from there, as it is still doing.So, now the idea is that the Big Bang took place at the same moment in the whole infinite space.

However, I assume that you understand that this idea could kill down the BBT before we even we start our discussion, as there is no way to cool down the temp of infinite space.

What is the meaning of increasing an infinity space to infinity space?

Why it is not relevant?

Why you do not want to discuss about it?

If our scientists can't give the answer for the time before the BBT than how is responsible for that time?

I also didn't get yet an answer how the thermodynamics law works at the BBT.

Just based on this data, do you agree that the magnetic power has an ULTRA HIGH energy force?

Why do you insist that the first thermodynamics law should not work at the excretion disc

although it is clear that there is so much extra energy there

how can you claim that an energy ratio of 1 to 10^100 is not good enough to form one single quark.

The Universe is infinite!!!I can prove it.

So, do you agree that the excretion disc can create subatomic particles as quarks?

1. If all the energy and mass of the Universe (Finite or infinite) was there before the Big bang, then do you agree that the Universe was already there before the Big Bang? If so, why we don't add that time to the Universe age?

2. Do you agree that the Big bang activity is based on energy, and it also had consumed some portion of the available energy that existed in the Universe before that bang?

As you claim that there is no violation in thermodynamics - so do you agree that the Big bang had reduced the total energy of the Universe? Do you have an idea by what factor?

3. If the Universe was already there, and the BB just reduced the total energy of the Universe, so would you kindly explain the benefit of that bang? Why do we need it?

4. I still don't understand why don't we start the BBT theory when there was no mass/energy in the Universe

What is the benefit of theory if it starts when we already have everything?

For example, Theory-D starts when there is only one BH in the whole Universe. This one BH sets the whole Infinite Universe.

Whoever said there was ever a point in the past when there was no mass or energy in the Universe? That would violate the first law.

Only if the total now is nonzero, a debated thing.

QuoteThe Universe is infinite!!!I can prove it.Please do so.

What kind of engineering are your teams involved in? I'm an engineer myself, not a scientist.

Quote from: KryptidQuoteThe Universe is infinite!!!I can prove it.Please do so.With pleasure!.The evidence is in the CMB:...The radiation is coming from "all parts of the sky" -So the same radiation at the same amplitude is coming from any direction.Let's start by the assumption that the Universe has a ball shape and it is limited in its size (Universe radius - Ru).

So, if the Universe is finite, it is quite clear that in order to get the same radiation from any direction we have to be at the center of this universe, or close enough to the center. 1. Let's verify the statistical chance for that: In order to do so, let's divide Ru into 1000 segments and see what is the chance that we are located at one of that segments which are located at the center (or close enough to the center) of that Universe ball shape.So, R1 = Ru/1000

So, the total volume of the Universe based on R1 is:Vu= f of Ru^3 = f of (1000R1)^3 = 10^9 R1^3So the chance to be exactly at the center is 1 to 10^9.What is the chance that we are located at the most outwards segment (999 to 1000)?The Volume is:V(last segment) = V(Ru) - V(Ru -R1) =f of (1000R1)^3 - ((1000-1)R1)^3= 1000^3 R1^3 - 999^3 R1^3 = 2,997,001 R1^3So, while the chance to be in the center is 1 to 10^9, the chance to be at the most outwards segment is 2,997,001 to 10^9Therefore our chance to be at the most outwards envelop of the universe is greater by 2,997,001 than the chance to be at the center.

Therefore, Half of the whole volume is located between (0 to 800) R1While the other half is located between (800 to 1000) R1.Conclusion:Our chance to be at the center or close to the center of the ball shape universe is very minimal.It is clear that from statistical point of view, we have higher chance to be at the segment from (500 - 1000)R1 comparing to any other segment at the (0 -500)R1This proves that if the Universe was finite, we had to receive different radiation amplitude from different directions.

Second, for any far away galaxies that are leaving our observable Universe, new galaxies will be born. So, the total density of mass in our observable universe (or at any aria in the infinite Universe) will stay the same

Quote from: HalcWhat kind of engineering are your teams involved in? I'm an engineer myself, not a scientist.Electronics (Mainly Communications and computing - I was leading the technical support for Intel & AMD in my aria).

R1 is about 46 billion light years (size of visible universe). Yes, if there was an edge and it was closer than that, we'd see the anomaly in the CMB.

The odds of being not at the edge is about 997 to 3 by this calculation. So most likely we're neither at the edge nor the exact center. But it seems that only at the edge would the CMB definitely not be isotropic.

Argument by stats is not a proof. It results in a probability of something being true, but not proof. I accept such probabilistic evidence, but I don't accept the premises. The accepted models of a finite universe don't look like what you're describing. They're either non-euclidean, or an Ru in line with eternal inflation theory where there are finite edges because we're using a foliation where the universe is young and still 'banging' presently.

If Ru = 46 Billion LYThe total size of the Universe is as big as the Observable UniverseR1 = Ru/1000 = 46 Million LY

Quote from: HalcThe odds of being not at the edge is about 997 to 3 by this calculation. So most likely we're neither at the edge nor the exact center. But it seems that only at the edge would the CMB definitely not be isotropic.It seems to me that you have missed the point.If the radius of the whole Universe is 46 BLY,

let's divide it into two sections:The odds of being in at the range of 0 to 46/2= 32BLY is only 0.125.The odds of being in at the range of 32 BLY to 46BLY is 0.875.Therefore, our chance to be at the radius of 32BLY to 46BLY is higher than the chance to be at the 0 to 32BLY.

So, assuming that we will be located at 32BLY from the center than:In one direction to the edge of the Universe it will be at a distance of 64 +32 = 96BLY, while in the other side it will only be 32 BLY.

Therefore, the ratio between one side to the other side is 1 to 3 (32 vs 96)I hope that you agree that in this case, the CMB definitely not be isotropic.So, we don't need to be exactly at the edge in order to get that none isotropic radiation.

You have selected R1 = 46BLY.

So, in this caseRu = 46,000BLYHence, it this example the real Universe is 1000 time the observable Universe:

Even for this case:The chance to be at a radius of 0 to 32,000BLY is 0.125

While the chance to be at 32,000BLY to 64,000BLY is 0.8125.Therefore, even in a really big universe, it is expected to get CMB which is not be isotropic.

Therefore, just if the Universe is infinite we will get a perfect isotropic radiation.

Quote from: HalcArgument by stats is not a proof. It results in a probability of something being true, but not proof. I accept such probabilistic evidence, but I don't accept the premises.Sorry - I don't understand why do you reject that kind of statistical calculation.

Argument by stats is not a proof. It results in a probability of something being true, but not proof. I accept such probabilistic evidence, but I don't accept the premises.

Shell theorem should make radiation look isotropic even if your model of a finite, spherical universe is used. Shell theorem is normally used to describe gravity, but it should work here too because radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

If you're in sight of the edge, sure, the CMB would not be on that side.

So you're asserting that the universe appears isotropic only when less than half way to the edge?

The Big Bang did not create mass or energy. It represented an extreme expansion of space that mass and energy already existed in

Therefore, this theory proves my case.If the universe is finite (at any size) than by definition we wouldn't get an isotropic CMB.

So, you agree that if we were close enough to the edge of a finite Universe the CMB shouldn't be isotropic.But how close?

Quote from: HalcSo you're asserting that the universe appears isotropic only when less than half way to the edge?I have found that the chance to be half way to the edge is 0.875.The CMB value is very accurate: 2.72548±0.00057 K.[4] Therefore, the universe appears isotropic only if we are at the most center of the finite Universe or close enough to its center.The chance for that in very minimal.Hence, our Universe must be infinity.

So, the Big Bang doesn't give any answer for the creation of the mass and energy in our Universe.Not even one gram of mass or extra energy!Therefore, do you agree that the BBT is only a theory of transformation?

They can't say - Sorry it isn't our job!Who is going to take care on that???

I have tried to find by Google: "How the universe was created?"There are many explanations about it - all of them are based on the BBT.

This is misleading information.

Our scientists actually mislead all the people in our planet about the BBT, as it does not deal with the most important part of the creation - Mass and Energy.Hence, how can they call it a theory of "creation?"

If so, please advise them to look for a real theory of creation as Theory-D.

Unfortunately, you have missed the key point in this article

So, the Big Bang doesn't give any answer for the creation of the mass and energy in our Universe.

Not even one gram of mass or extra energy!

Therefore, do you agree that the BBT is only a theory of transformation?

How our scientists could bypass that key element in the theory of creation our Universe.

They have to answer how the total mass and energy had been created in our universe - Finite or Infinite!

They can't say - Sorry it isn't our job!

Who is going to take care on that???

Hence, how can they call it a theory of "creation?"They must call the BBT a theory of "transformation"!!!Do you agree with that?