0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

The part that you quoted is about a "solid sphere of uniform density" not a "hollow sphere". Gravity varies linearly from the center of a solid sphere, whereas there is no net force at all inside of a hollow sphere.

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

I can think of models where there is an edge and we are right at it, and the CMB still isotropic.

In the article they show clearly that from inside the sphere each point get's different force:"The magnitude of the gravitational field that would pull a particle at point P in the x direction is the gravitational field multiplied by cos(theta) where theta is the angle adjacent to the x axis. In this case, cos(theta)=p/sqrt(p^2+R^2)"If we: "Integrating the field due to each thin disc from x=-a to x=+a with respect to x, and after careful algebra, beautifully yields Newton's shell theorem."Hence, by setting the integration on all of those different forces at different locations we get that Newton's shell theorem.However, we are dealing with the different forces at different locations:You actually claim that we can compare the gravity forces to radiation:"radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law)"So, it is very clear that we should get different radiation if we won't stay at the center of this finite Universe "shell".If you think differently - please prove it.

To quote the narrator, "So now, we have the second part of Newton's shell theorem. It states that a homogeneous spherically symmetric shell exerts no gravitational force on objects within the shell."

Quote from: HalcI can think of models where there is an edge and we are right at it, and the CMB still isotropic.Is it real???

If we stay at the far edge of the Universe, while we see half of the sky full with galaxies

Why do you totally reject the idea that the Universe is/could be infinite?

However, all it says that the sum of all the forces from all the directions is zero.But they don't say that the forces from all the directions are the same.

So, if we take one line (left/right) we should find that the force from the left side cancel the force from the right side.If we take another line (up/down), we should find that the force from upwards cancel the force from downwards.However, they didn't say that the forces from Left/right are equal with the forces from up/down.

The forces from the left and right direction are zero and the forces from the up and down direction are zero. Zero is equal to zero, so they are equal.

So, if we take one line (left/right) we should find that the force from the left side cancel the force from the right side.If we take another line (up/down), we should find that the force from upwards cancel the force from downwards.However, they didn't say that the forces from Left/right are equal with the forces from up/down.So, do you agree that there is no prove for isotropic forces in this example?

I understand what you're asking. Cancelling forces (net zero) does not imply isotropy. It wasn't the purpose of the example to demonstrate isotropy. But the same mathematics of the shell theorem can be used to demonstrate that the force/radiation is isotropic inside a shell, and you'd realize that if you understood how the proof works and didn't just focus on the words used in the conclusion.

QuoteWhy do you totally reject the idea that the Universe is/could be infinite?Where did I say this?

But the forces from left/right are not equal to the up down directions.

Quote from: Halcthe same mathematics of the shell theorem can be used to demonstrate that the force/radiation is isotropic inside a shell, and you'd realize that if you understood how the proof works and didn't just focus on the words used in the conclusion.So, what do you want to say by that?

the same mathematics of the shell theorem can be used to demonstrate that the force/radiation is isotropic inside a shell, and you'd realize that if you understood how the proof works and didn't just focus on the words used in the conclusion.

Quote from: HalcQuoteWhy do you totally reject the idea that the Universe is/could be infinite?Where did I say this?If you accept the idea that the universe is/could be infinite, then why do you continue to disapprove this idea?

Please quote one place where I (or Kryptid) deny that the universe could be infinite. I'm simply denying that it must be, as you assert.

So, you still do not want to accept the idea that the Universe IS INFINITE.You prefer to set it under "Could be" infinite, (or: "We don't know"?).

I have proved that in order to get isotropic CMB radiation the universe MUST BE infinite.

If you are still denying that it "must be" infinite, then please prove it.

Please show why in a finite Universe we can still get isotropic CMB radiation - based on "shell theorem" (and only on shell theorem theory)" .

Your model on the other hand (besides being a violation of several principles) doesn't predict one. If the universe started out at one place (instead of everywhere) and spread out from there, it would be finite size after finite time (due to light speed limitation) and probably wouldn't have a CMB at all.

I'll let Kryptid do that. He brought it up. The hypersphere model is isotropic due to symmetry and the shell theorem isn't a part of the argument.

However, I assume that any evidence that contradicts the wishful list should be rejected.

Quote from: HalcThe hypersphere model is isotropic due to symmetry and the shell theorem isn't a part of the argument.Why do you claim that: "the shell theorem isn't a part of the argument."?

The hypersphere model is isotropic due to symmetry and the shell theorem isn't a part of the argument.

So, I'm waiting for Kryptid to let us know if there is a possibility to get isotropic radiation at a finite Universe

So, I'm waiting for Kryptid to let us know if there is a possibility to get isotropic radiation at a finite Universe (at any size and at any location in the Universe) under the "shell theorem" theory

They have to be equal because you already posited a spherical Universe. There is nothing to cause the radiation coming from above you or below you to have a different intensity than the radiation coming at you from the sides.If they weren't equal, then the microwave background would not look isotropic from any point in the Universe, not even in the middle. If the radiation coming from above you and below you was brighter than the radiation coming from your sides, this would be detectable anywhere. The fact that the radiation is observed to be isotropic means that this is not the case.

They have to be equal because you already posited a spherical Universe. There is nothing to cause the radiation coming from above you or below you to have a different intensity than the radiation coming at you from the sides.

If they weren't equal, then the microwave background would not look isotropic from any point in the Universe, not even in the middle. If the radiation coming from above you and below you was brighter than the radiation coming from your sides, this would be detectable anywhere. The fact that the radiation is observed to be isotropic means that this is not the case.

We see clearly that the net forces are based on distances

Therefore, it is clear that for one we might get F1 force while from the other line we can get F2.

So, how do we get the same CMB spectrum, same black body radiation and the same redshift from all directions as we get closer to one edge of the finite Universe?

Space expanding in all directions would cause an equal redshift at all locations in the Universe.

We see clearly that the local impact of the expansion is very minimal.Hence:1. If our distance to the near edge is R1 and the distance to the far edge is 1000R1, do you agree that the expansion impact of 1000R1 should be higher than R1 by 1000? If so, how could it be that we should get the same redshift in both directions?

2. If we are located only one Mpc from the edge, then the impact of the expansion is only 73Km/s. How that speed can set a redshift of 1100?