[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Lance Canham]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?.

[Kryptid]

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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..

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

Our Universe isn't expanding!!!

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/639349-multiple-exclamation-marks-he-went-on-shaking-his-head-are

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bobolink]

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. 

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

You keep talking about things drifting away forever.
WHY ARE THEY STILL HERE?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Do you think those galaxies are infinitely old?
(which would be a breach of most of the observed laws of physics)?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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)