[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

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?

[Bored chemist]

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

• rant at me for introducing some stupid irrelevant idea, or
• actually  do some study.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

Our scientists have no clue about the size of the Universe.

That's wrong, but irrelevant.
You made a false assertion in your "theory".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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!!!

[Bored chemist]

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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

We MUST first find the real size of our entire Universe.

Why?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Lance Canham]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.