0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"But lately scientists have revived Einstein's cosmological constant (denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda) to explain a mysterious force called dark energy that seems to be counteracting gravity -- causing the universe to expand at an accelerating pace."
Therefore, we must respect this scientist and NOT use his "biggest blunder" to prove the unrealistic idea of "dark energy", as there is no dark energy in our Universe.
OK. That quote suggests that the cosmological constant and dark energy are the same explanation, not alternate explanations for the same effect.
Yet your statement here seems to suggest that this one explanation is unrealistic, leaving no alternative. So your statement certainly doesn't follow from the quote you gave
In order to prove the idea of the dark energy, our scientists were obliged to set a positive cosmological constant value in Einstein formula.Therefore, do you agree that without this positive value, they would not be able to add the dark energy into Einstein formula?
As I have proved, Einstein had claimed that it is forbidden to use this cosmological constant in his formula.
Hence, without using the cosmological constant, how our scientists could prove the existence of that dark energy in Einstein formula?
Without the dark energy, they can't explain the acceleration in the expansion process.
Without this explanation, they have a severe problem with the BBT.
You claim to have proved that Einstein made a claim about the forbidden usage of some constant in some unspecified formula. That sounds pretty inconsistent if the formula makes any mention of this constant.
QuoteIn order to prove the idea of the dark energy, our scientists were obliged to set a positive cosmological constant value in Einstein formula.Therefore, do you agree that without this positive value, they would not be able to add the dark energy into Einstein formula?See post 497 for my reply to this repeated question.
Which formula is this?And I don't think any cosmological theory has ever been claimed as proved.
1. Do you agree that in order to prove mathematically the BBT, our scientists are Using Friedmann equations?
2. Do you agree that Friedmann equations are based on Einstein' general relativity formulas?Quote from: wikiwiki Friedmann_equations"The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity.""They were first derived by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 from Einstein's field equations of gravitation for the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and a perfect fluid with a given mass density and pressure"
wiki Friedmann_equations"The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity.""They were first derived by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 from Einstein's field equations of gravitation for the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and a perfect fluid with a given mass density and pressure"
3. Do you agree that in that Einstein general relativity formula the cosmological constant is a key element that is needed to validate the existence of the dark matter? So it must have a positive value?
So, do you agree that dark matter is a key element in our understanding of the Universe?It is stated clearly: "The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation for dark energy, and is used in the current standard model of cosmology known as the ΛCDM model"Therefore, the cosmological constant Λ in Einstein formula is used as a possible explanation for the existence of dark matter.
4. Do you agree that Einstein had rejected the idea of using the cosmological constant in his formula?
5. Therefore, do you agree that without that cosmological constant we can't confirm mathematically the existence of dark matter?
6. If so, do you agree that without the dark matter we can't explain the acceleration in the expansion?
7. If we can't explain that acceleration in the expansion, how can we prove the BBT?
None of this has anything to do with dark matter. I think you mean dark energy,
Quote1. Do you agree that in order to prove mathematically the BBT, our scientists are Using Friedmann equations?Nobody proves anything, and I've said that repeatedly. So I will not agree to such a statement.
Do you mean that there is no mathematical prove for the BBT?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 25/06/2019 17:39:45Do you mean that there is no mathematical prove for the BBT?here is no mathematical proof for any theory. That isn't how theories work.
in order to set a star in Hydrogen cloud there must be a nearby SMBH
Time for the first hydrogen star to set the first Supernova explosion.
one hypothetical idea for the creation of those two heavy metals is an explosion in twin neutron stars.
how do the the plutonium had been created and how it had been arrived to our planet in only 13.8 BY?
If there is no mathematical proof for the BBT, than do you agree that there is a chance that it is incorrect?
I have set several obstacles for the feasibility of the BBT.One of the main obstacles is time frame.I really can't see how can we fit all of this magnificent Universe in only 13.8 Billion years.
If the Universe is infinite in its size and there is no curvature - than why do you insisted that the 13.8 BY is still ok to set it?
In one program they have discussed about the SMBH.They have asked how the SMBH had been created.They have set a calculation that if we take a BH and give it the time to eat as much as it wants, it can't technically be converted to SMBH after 13.8 BY.Much more time is needed.
However, we see massive spiral galaxies (with embedded SMBH) with estimated age of about 12 BY.
In SMBH there are over than Billion BH.
Why don't we see as many mid size BH with only few Millions of BH?
In any case, they were positively sure that the SMBH can't evolve from a BH due to time limitation.
In the other program they have discussed about the heavy metal as Iridium and gold.They have found that those metals could not been created by a supernova. The maximum power of that supernova is Setting Iron.
They have stated that one hypothetical idea for the creation of those two heavy metals is an explosion in twin neutron stars.
3. Time to set the first star. However, we have already found that in order to set a star in Hydrogen cloud there must be a nearby SMBH).
3. Time for the first hydrogen star to set the first Supernova explosion. Due to this explosion we get the iron. However, it is very rare and it is stes the iron as dust in space.
5. How long it might take to this first iron dust could to set the first twin neutron star systems.
7. How long it might take to those heavy metal to arrive to our planet?
If they are too far away, do you agree that due to the expansion in space, they have no chance to get by Asteroids to our planet?
So, how do we have got Gold and iridium in only 13.8 Billion years?
In this program they didn't even try to explain how heavier Atoms as plutonium had been created.
So, how do the the plutonium had been created and how it had been arrived to our planet in only 13.8 BY?
So, if the BBT has no real approval, why don't you open your mind to a breakthrough theory?
When these first stars exploded, they would have distributed a lot of elements up to iron, which made the formation of the next generation of "Population II" stars much easier.See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars
The reason is that the early stars were formed from Hydrogen and Helium, and these have difficulty radiating away energy.
To collapse under their own gravity, the first "Population III" stars must have been very massive, perhaps 100 times the mass of the Sun. Since the rate of burning their nuclear fuel increases as something like the 4th power of the mass, these stars would have had short lives.
There is some natural Plutonium generated continually on Earth, as a neutron occasionally strikes a Uranium atom in Uranium ores; this unstable Uranium nucleus decays into Plutonium (and then into Americium). The balance between creation of Plutonium and decay of Plutonium is biased heavily on the decay side, so the long-term average level of Plutonium in Uranium ores is extremely low.
Iron is the lowest energy form, but creation of the higher elements has not been shown to be impossible.
Of relevance to this thread's discussion on suppermassive black holes: https://mediarelations.uwo.ca/2019/06/28/black-hole-formation/
I really don't know if our scientists accept this assumption.
In any case, if the SMBH can't get to that size at a very short period, Do you agree that the age of the SMBH (the very massive one) should be longer than just 800 Million years?
If that is corret, do you agree that the age of the Universe should be longer than just 13.8 billion years?
Only if it can be demonstrated that it must take longer than 800 million years for it to form and reach its measured mass.
The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth."
So how could it be that the Big bang could form so high percentage of Helium (25% of all the matters in the Universe are Helium)?
Let's look at our SMBH.If I recall it correctly, our scientists verified that it consumes about 3 Sun mass per year. So, in one billion year is will add about 0.75 to its current mass.
Our scientists know/should know the maximal consumption rate of a BH.
3billion is not 0.75 of 4 million. It is 750 times its current mass.
No, Sgr-A consumes almost no mass per year, far less than the average it would need (a star every 3000 years) to have grown to its present mass.
Sgr-A consumes almost no mass per year,
If you feed it, it will eat it. It isn't going to say "No-thanks, that's enough for today". There is no max rate.
"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon "So, there must be a Max rate.
In any case - what is the real meaning of: "more than 99%"Why they don't say: 100%???
Do they see any infalling material?
Quote from: Kryptid on 07/07/2019 00:51:48Only if it can be demonstrated that it must take longer than 800 million years for it to form and reach its measured mass.In the article that you have offered it was stated clearly:Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/07/2019 15:49:46The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth."
Also in the TV program it was stated clearly that there is a limitation for the BH size increase over time.So, there is a big question about the minimal requested time to form a SMBH.
There is unlimited number of black holes in our Universe.
We must trace the BH activities and verify how long it might take them to increase their mass over time.If we will discover that on average it takes about one Billion year for a black hole to double its mass, we could set the clock time for our Universe.
Is there any way to set a SMBH without crossing the stage of compact BH?Is there any possibility to form a man without crossing the stages of boyhood, childhood or babyhood?Why do we assume that a SMBH can be formed without crossing the stages of compact BH, Mid size BH and Massive BH?
Our scientists know/should know the maximal consumption rate of a BH.Based on that, they could easily calculate how long is needed to transform a compact BH into a mid size BH and how long it might take to a mid size BH to be transformed into a SMBH.We know that the SMBH at the core of the Andromeda galaxy is much more massive than the SMBH in our galaxy.So, we can also calculate the requested time to form that kind of Ultra SMBH out of a (Milky Way)' SMBH.Hence, we must look for the biggest SMBH in the Universe and try to calculate how long it might take it to be formed out of a compact BH.That time frame sets the minimal age of the Universe.So, why can't we use the SMBH to adjust the time clock for our Universe?
QuoteDo they see any infalling material?Yes. Sgr-A would not be visible in certain frequencies if no material fell in.
That all depends on what model you are using to calculate the growth rate. The direct collapse model doesn't require a small black hole to grow into a large one. The gas cloud collapses directly into a heavy black hole.
"The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater. "How could it be?If the mouth of that colossal black hole is full with food, why does it eject over than 99% from its food?Can we prove that it eats 0.1% or even 0.0...01% from that food?How many animals do we know that eject over than 99% from the food in their mouth?