[Bored chemist]

Theory D is the Ultimate theory for our Universe.

It's not a theory.
It's plainly wrong.

So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?

Hard to say. First of all you have to come up with a good idea.
Are you planning to do that?
The other thing you need to be able to do is support that idea.
So, for example, if someone asks "What can you show  us which is inconsistent with the BBT?" you will need to learn not to ignore them.

[Bobolink]

So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?

I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?

[Bored chemist]

So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?

I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?

My guess is this, or something like it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's not a theory.
It's plainly wrong.

How can you claim for that while you didn't even try to read it and understand how it really works?
Could it be that you have disqualify theory D just because your main mission is to protect the BBT?

Yes, the impossibility of an infinitely old universe, and thus the impossibility of your so-called "theory".

It is forbidden to qualify or disqualify one theory with other theory.
As I have stated, based on the BBT, it is clearly impossible to have infinite old Universe.
However, Theory D isn't BBT.
Based on theory D, new matter is created constantly in the photosphere around BH/SMBH
Therefore, there is no limit for the size or age of the Universe
If you still think differently, then would you please show why an infinite Universe which generates constantly new matter can't live forever?

Show me one.
It only takes one.
Go on...
Give us a single observation which is inconsistent with the BBT.

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"
Is it good enough?

I am beginning to think there may be something wrong with you.
Why would you enjoy writing about silly crap on a subject you know nothing about exposing yourself to riddicule?

Thanks for your deep concern about me.
I'm fully Ok.
You don't know me. Let me just tell you that I have master in engineering and communications
I was involved in the development of edge technologies.
After learning science and physical laws, it was very clear to me that there is a fatal error with the BBT.
I have developed theory D with help from this forum.
I highly advice you to read the theory and get your own impression from it.

[Bored chemist]

How can you claim for that while you didn't even try to read it and understand how it really works?

Because it assumes something which we know to be untrue.

As I have stated, based on the BBT, it is clearly impossible to have infinite old Universe.

Also, as I have pointed out, Not based on the BBT it is impossible to have an infinitely old Universe.

The fact that the universe is not infinitely old was pointed out by Olber a long time before the BBT was introduced.

So, I'm not saying your idea is wrong because it conflicts with  the BBT.
I am saying it is wrong because it goes dark at night.

If you still think differently, then would you please show why an infinite Universe which generates constantly new matter can't live forever?

Again?
Why?
Were you not paying attention last time?
Oh well- if you must
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests
And the references there, particularly this one
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

After deep learning science and physical laws, it was very clear to me that there is a fatal error with the BBT.

Then for F***'s sake tell us what it is!.

Who knows- you might even  get a Nobel prize out of it.

I have master in engineering and communications

Right for the wrong reason. You have many masters.
You may also have a master's in engineering and communications.
It's ironic given how  poor your communications here are.

[Bobolink]

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"
Is it good enough?

No it isn't.  That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers.  The actual paper and the researchers do not say that.  For a fellow that has a masters in engineering, your lack of rigor is startling.

[Bobolink]

Can you please direct me to the article that could confirm the age of the Universe by uranium?

No that would be impossible since there was no uranium formed from the big bang.  If you had any knowledge about the actual BBT you would not ask such a stupid question.
Elements heavier than iron are formed from super novae.

Please remember that based on theory D each planet and moon had been created as hot gas ball.
So, how the Uranium could set the age of a hot gas ball?

Another reason that we can conclude that your theory is a just idle conjecture with no supporting evidence.

The 2 main isotopes of uranium are U-238 and U-235.  U-235 is used in reactors.  There are places on earth where there have been natural nuclear reactors.  The concentration of U-235, in conjunction with ground water produced sustained chain reactions that resulted in low power production of about 100 kw.  These natural reactors existed more than 2 billion years ago and it is no longer possible for these natural reactors to exist.  The U-235 necessary for the natural chain reaction has decayed to such low levels that it is not possible for sustained reactions to occur now.  This of course points to the relative young age of the earth, young relative to your infinite age balderdash.

[Bobolink]

In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.

There is a finite amount of hydrogen in a star, therefore there is a finite amount of fusion that will occur, therefore when the finite amount of fuel is consumed the star will die.  How do you not know this if you are trying to make theories in astrophysics?

[Kryptid]

No it isn't.  That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers. 

Indeed so. Express is not a good website to get news from. It is filled with misleading, click-bait articles.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The fact that the universe is not infinitely old was pointed out by Olber a long time before the BBT was introduced.

So, I'm not saying your idea is wrong because it conflicts with  the BBT.
I am saying it is wrong because it goes dark at night.

I have already answered this question.
Why is it so difficult?

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, we technically should find only in this line an infinite no of galaxies. However, more than 99.9...9 present of the galaxies are drifting away from us at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Therefore, we can't see them. Only 0.0..1 are located at the observable aria in our Universe.
So, the total galaxies in that line which are still located in the "observable aria" are quite neglected and therefore it goes dark at night.
Is it clear?

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.

Your answer was:

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?

My answer was:

Our Universe isn't expanding!!!
Only the matter/galaxies in our infinite Universe are expanding.
I have already copy the explanation for you.

So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.

[Bobolink]

Dave.
I am very dubious about your ideas, but let's discuss them.  Let's ignore the BBT and concentrate on your ideas.
Am I right in saying your idea is that the universe is infinite in size and infinite in age?
Is another part of your idea that the universe is expanding?  In other words you agree with the observations having to do with red shift and other evidence of expansion?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I am very dubious about your ideas, but let's discuss them.  Let's ignore the BBT and concentrate on your ideas.

Thanks
You are the first person that is really willing to understand Theory D.
So, I do appreciate!

Am I right in saying your idea is that the universe is infinite in size and infinite in age?

Yes

Is another part of your idea that the universe is expanding?

Our Universe is not expanding. It has infinite space. This space is fixed. There is no way to stretch it or expand it over time.
Only the mater/galaxies are expanding in the infinite space of our universe.
Please read the following explanation about the expansion:

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 its own baby BHs.
So, this first BH will become the mother of 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 generations, the relative velocity between the first mother to the last generation 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 generation will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first mother 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 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.

In other words you agree with the observations having to do with red shift and other evidence of expansion?

Sure
Theory D gives perfect explanation for that red shift.
It also gives perfect explanation for the CMB.

[Bored chemist]

So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.

OK, here's the problem

drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.

Things don't travel faster than light.
You can only get that by expanding space itself but.

Our Universe is not expanding.

There's also the problem that matter attracts other matter. so you need to explain what has been pushing all this infinite time (thereby expending an infinite amount of energy- an infinitely worse problem than "funding " the energy for your misunderstanding of the big bang and doubly infinitely worse than actually providing the zero energy needed).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 23:59:20
So please let me know if you still have difficulties to understand why in our infinite universe it goes dark at night.

OK, here's the problem

It is quite clear that whatever I will give you, even if it is correct by 100%, you would never ever accept it.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 23:59:20
drifting away from us at 10 times the speed of light.

Things don't travel faster than light.

This statement is totally incorrect.
I can prove it even based on our current observation:
If we look to the left we see galaxies that are moving away from us almost at the speed of light.
Let's assume that the further galaxy is Galaxy A.
If we look to the right we also see galaxies that are moving away from us at almost the speed of light.
Let's assume that the further galaxy is Galaxy B.
So, you do understand that the velocity between galaxies A to B is 2c.
Now, Lets assume that we stay at galaxy and look all the way to the left.
So, we should see galaxy C at the further most location that is moving away from A at the speed of light.
In the same way if we stay at galaxy B and look all the way for the right we should see galaxy D that is moving also at the sped of the light.
Therefore, If we stay at C than:
Galaxy A should move away from it at the speed of light
Galaxy B should move away at 3c
Galaxy D should move away at 4c.
I hope that by now you do understand that galaxies could move away from each other at the speed which is much higher than the speed of light.

 

You can only get that by expanding space itself but

Let me tell you something about the expanding the space:
This idea is totally wrong. I really can't understand how any person that calls himself scientist could accept this kind of imagination.
However, if you already set yourself in imagination Universe, than why do you limit the imagination for just expanding in space? What's wrong in one more imagination as expanding in time?
So, now think about an expanding space-time and you can set yourself at the infinite at zero time.
Sorry - it's the time for you to stop dreaming.
There is no expansion in time and there is no expansion in space.
The space in our Universe is Infinite and it was in that condition even before the BBT and before any kind of imagination that you wish to believe on.
Even if you take infinite energy, you won't be able to expand the space even by one centimeter.
If you believe that it is feasible, than please show the law of physics that could support that imagination.
So, the whole idea of expanding in space should be set ASAP in the garbage.

There's also the problem that matter attracts other matter.

Look at our Galaxy
There are about 400 Billion stars. If mater attracts other mater than how could it be that those 400 B Stars do not collide with each other?
Do you know that our galaxy is crossing the space at almost 600Km/s.
For any star in the galaxy, there is at least one outside.
So, it is clear that as our galaxy cross the space at that high velocity it constantly collide with any star that is located in its way.
So, if mater attracts other mater than why those billion stars (that are outside the galaxy) doesn't penetrate into the galaxy and collide with the stars that are already in the galaxy?
Why don't we see them all as they expected to cross into the galaxy and even cross near the solar system?
Sorry - you have a severe misunderstanding about that idea.

so you need to explain what has been pushing all this infinite time (thereby expending an infinite amount of energy- an infinitely worse problem than "funding " the energy for your misunderstanding of the big bang and doubly infinitely worse than actually providing the zero energy needed).

If you try to understand how theory D really works, than you should understand that at any given moment, infinite no of BH, MBH, SMBH, Magnatar, pulsar… are using the gravity and zero energy mechanism to transform the energy into new matter.

However, it should be quite clear to all of us that you have no intention to abandon the BBT.
Therefore, you have no interest in theory D and you would reject any idea that contradicts the BBT.

I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:

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"
Is it good enough?

So, what was the reply:

Quote from: Bobolink on Yesterday at 18:34:38
No it isn't.  That headline is just a sensationalism to attract readers.

Indeed so. Express is not a good website to get news from. It is filled with misleading, click-bait articles.

However, you totally ignore the idea that this is a clear OBSERVATION.
It isn't just some sort of idea.
In the article it is state that they have observed very Big BH while based on the BBT its age was too young for that size:
"The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling.”
So, you can't disqualify that observation just because you don't like it.
If the observation is correct, than you have to deal with that "puzzling" issue.

[Bored chemist]

So, you do understand that the velocity between galaxies A to B is 2c.

No.
I understand physics.
So I know that , for high velocities, newtonian mechanics (such as the additivity of velocities) is inappropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

Shouldn't you have learned that before trying to say that everybody else is wrong?

This idea is totally wrong. I really can't understand how any person that calls himself scientist could accept this kind of imagination.

Because it fits with the observed data.

There are about 400 Billion stars. If mater attracts other mater than how could it be that those 400 B Stars do not collide with each other?

Because they are in orbit. But, if you give them enough time, they will crash into eachother.

So, as you say, they exist.
That's proof that the universe isn't infinitely old.

you would reject any idea that contradicts the BBT.

Well, BBT works, and explains our observations. Your idea, which you keep calling a theory even though it isn't,  does not.
And your idea is based on something which we know to be false.
I'm happy to give up on the BBT for a better idea. but not for a plainly worse one.

However, you totally ignore the idea that this is a clear OBSERVATION.

And you miss the point that the comment about BBT is NOT AN OBSERVATION.
It's an indication that our models of black holes need revisiting. That's no great shock. Our knowledge of BH is, obviously, incomplete.

I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:

You have offered an observation that contradicts one of our models for black holes.
That's really not the same thing.

So  your statement "

I have offered a clear observation that contradicts the BBT:

is false.

Now, since you said you could, perhaps you would like to actually show what's wrong with the BBT.

[Bobolink]

Our Universe is not expanding. It has infinite space. This space is fixed. There is no way to stretch it or expand it over time.
Only the mater/galaxies are expanding in the infinite space of our universe.
Please read the following explanation about the expansion:

Please don't feed me your paper a piece at a time for your answers.
So when we see galaxies moving away from us it is because they are moving through space, not because space is expanding?  Correct?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So when we see galaxies moving away from us it is because they are moving through space, not because space is expanding?  Correct?

Sure

I understand physics.
So I know that , for high velocities, newtonian mechanics (such as the additivity of velocities) is inappropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula
Shouldn't you have learned that before trying to say that everybody else is wrong?

Our scientists claim that our observable Universe sphere is about 94 BLY. This sphere is just one part in the entire Universe that should be bigger than that. However, they do not claim that we can see further than 13 BLY as they assume that this is the maximal distance that we can still see galaxies that are moving away almost at the speed of light.
In reality due to this Velocity-addition_formula, there is good chance that we actually see galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light. However, our scientists prefer to claim that the furthest galaxies are moving away ONLY at almost at the speed of light.

I have actually discussed the impact of that formula with Kryptid in the past. If I recall it correctly, he has told me that if an object at the far end space is moving away from us at 1.2 c than theoretically we could still see it. However, there is a limit.
So, let's assume for this discussion that the maximal velocity that we can still see is 1.5c
Now, let's go back to my example:
If we look to the left, we see galaxy A at the furthest location. We assume that it is moving away at almost at the speed of light. However, due to this formula/concept, that galaxy is actually moving away at 1.5c (as this is the maximal velocity that we can still see).
In the same token, if someone was there he cloud only see our galaxy as the furthest galaxy in our direction.
So, we can see to the left galaxy A, while if we look to the right we see galaxy B. Each one of them is moving away from us at the maximal observable velocity of 1.5c.
Therefore, as the velocity between galaxy A to galaxy B is actually 3c, they will clearly won't see each other.
Therefore, our scientists don't claim that we can see a galaxy that is located at 26 BLY away from us (although our observable universe is 94 BLY).

However, based on this Velocity-addition_formula we should set the BBT in the garbage.
If due to this concept we actually see galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, than we actually could see further away from the limited 13 BLY that our scientists have stated.
Therefore, the Big Black hole that our scientists have discovered could be much older than just 13 BY.
So, how could it be that our scientists do not use this Velocity-addition_formula?
As you claim that you understand physics, why don't you use this formula to kick out the BBT? Why only Theory D?

[Bobolink]

Sure

That presents a problem, because you said the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity.  How does your idea address that issue?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That presents a problem, because you said the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity.  How does your idea address that issue?

It is quite clear to me by now that you are using terms/laws/formulas/theories/hypothesis... only to disqualify other theories.
Based on your current understanding about relativity, any galaxy in our Universe couldn't move faster than the speed of light.
However, our scientists claim that a galaxy at a distance of 13 BLY is actually moving away from us almost the speed of light. Due to the idea that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous, a galaxy at 26 BLY should move away at 2c
We know that our observable universe is 94 BLY. Therefore, a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of:
94/13 c = 7.23 c.
Our scientists claim that the entire Universe should be quite bigger than this 94 BY
If we just assume that the entire universe is 130 BLY, than a galaxy that is located at the edge in one side, is moving away from the galaxy at the other side at velocity of 10c.
So, based on the current BBT theory you should know for sure that galaxies are already moving away from each other at a velocity which is much faster than the speed of light.

Therefore, I wonder how could you claim that: "the galaxies move faster than c so that would violate relativity." while you know for sure that based on the BBT galaxies are moving away from each other at least 7 times the speed of light?

[Bored chemist]

It is quite clear to me by now that you are using terms/laws/formulas/theories/hypothesis... only to disqualify other theories.

The fact that we can't get something to move faster than light isn't something that we dreamed up just to make life difficult for your idea.
If reality does not agree with your so-called "theory" it is not because reality is mistaken.