[Dave Lev (OP)]

Out of curiosity, Dave, if you had ten actual physicists (you know, people whose job it is to know this kind of stuff) tell you that your understanding of concepts like conservation of energy, universal expansion and the theory of relativity was all flawed, would you actually believe them or would you think that those ten physicists are deluded while you were the correct one? Would it even so much as give you pause and make you reconsider your understanding? If it was one hundred different physicists from around the world saying it, would it make any difference to you?

Thanks for this question
I have high appreciation for any person, scientist, physicist, astronomer or astrophysicist.
However, you can't just replace real science by believing.
Let me answer by another question:
If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?
My boss used to say, the proof is in the pudding.
Therefore, anyone who believes in science must set his own calculation and verify if we should accept the "main stream".
How can we follow in the path that our scientists have drawn while we clearly see that they are so puzzled on almost every new discovery?
In engineering there is no room for puzzled theory.
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.
However, it seems that when it comes to astronomy, the sky is the limit.
Why do we need to except any sort of theory just because 100,000 astronomers support it?
Sorry, I don't see myself as part of the herd.
Do you know that the Norwegian lemmings are not so stupid.
However, when overcrowding becomes an issue, they will run for the sea and throwing themselves off cliffs.
So, I don't see myself as part of those Norwegian lemmings herd.
If I was a Norwegian lemming, and see that over than 100,000 clever Norwegian lemmings are running for the sea I will surely not join them.
So, if you all think that you should join the 100,000 herd, than it's your choice.
For me - I would base any theory ONLY on real physics law and observations.
On the first contradiction, I will set that theory at the garbage and start from zero.

The BBT had been set about 70 years ago. From that moment our scientists do whatever it takes to keep it alive. I'm quite sure that during those 70 years many young scientists have wondered if the BBT is real.
However, they know for sure that it is forbidden to go against the BBT. One negative word and they will be ejected out from this elite community and out of job.
I'm so happy that our engineering community do not share the same concept as our astronomers elite community.
70 years ago, a clever engineer came with an idea of the first transistor at Bell laboratory.
We are so lucky that our engineering community at that time didn't eject this young engineer from the community.
Based on his breakthrough idea, we have today the most high tech instruments.
Therefore, it is clear to me that if our science community were more open for new ideas/theory than they would surly found by now the correct explanation for our Universe.
However, as they do whatever it takes to eliminate any objection to the BBT, we are still located at the darkness.
At some point they would surly understand that the BBT is useless. So, how long arewe all going to stay in the darkness?
Look at yourself.
I personally have the highest appreciation for your knowledge and wisdom.
However, you are using all of this knowledge to protect the BBT.
You have never stopped for just one moment and ask yourself: could it be that there is an error in this theory?
Why is it?
Even if you don't like theory D, why don't you accept the key problematic issues in the BBT?
I have offered so many issues with the BBT. Why can't you see all the big holes in this theory?
What is your advice with regards to the expansion rate calculation which I have just offered?

Why do I need to set the walk up call for all of you?

[Bored chemist]

If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.

Yes.
But you have not found a contradiction.
You have just misunderstood the underlying physics.
It does not help that you are sticking to a claim which is known to be false.

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.

You don't seem to have noticed the problems there.
One is about the size and age of the universe- which you are wrong about.
The other is this:
You say "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
Well, it isn't actually an indication of the size of the universe.
If we were in a very big box the walls of which were at about 2.7K we would see the same radiation in a finite universe.

So you  start your post with a a blatant flaw in logic.

You then compound that
"Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age"
Well, that's not a logical conclusion either.

So you start off by announcing loudly that you can not do simple logic.

That's not going to convince us that your post is worth reading, is it?



And I'm still waiting for you to answer this

I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity.
Am I correct in that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:40:36
If you set a theory and you observe a contradiction, than you MUST set this theory in the garbage.

Yes.
But you have not found a contradiction.

Yes I have found many of them.
Let's start with the expansion rate. Would you try to answer the following contradiction?

Therefore, do you agree that if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe was only 3LY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n Ly
The formula for the time is: T (n) =  n x 12,000 Years.
After n =33
Radius (n=33) = 3 * 2^n Ly = 3*8.58 10^9 = 25.74 Billion LY.
T (time after n=33) = 12,000 * 33 = 396,000 Years
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?

You have just misunderstood the underlying physics.

If you assume that there is an error in my calculation, than please highlight this error.

You say "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
Well, it isn't actually an indication of the size of the universe.

Yes it is.
I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation.
I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR.
In order to understand that, you have to understand how BBR really works

If we were in a very big box the walls of which were at about 2.7K we would see the same radiation in a finite universe

If our Universe had isolated walls all around it, than it could carry a BBR even if it was finite.
However, in this case, its temp should be much higher than just 2.7K.
A box with isolated walls is an oven. A big box could set a very big oven. Try to set the sun in a very big oven and see the outcome.
Therefore, our universe can't be considered as a finite Universe with isolated walls or opaque.

The redshift in the CMB (which indicates a distance of 46BLY) is one more evidence for the minimal size of our universe.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer this
I assume that you knowledge of spectroscopy is no better than your understanding of relativity
Am I correct in that?

Well I have already answered.

So, far you couldn't find any issue that contradicts Theory D. Therefore, you are using the flag of relativity in order to reject the main idea in theory D that galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light.
You wish to prove that this phenomenon contradicts the reality.
However, our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.

https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."

That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.
Actually, if we go back on time, when the BBT had been offered, no one really anticipate that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light. I assume that even Einstein didn't know about it when he came with his relativity theory.
This observation was a big surprise to the science community at that time.
So, I claim that it is not my task to explain the problem between the observations to the relativity formula.
I can just assume that if Einstein knew it on time, he would probably reconsider the whole issue of relativity.
In any case, I have estimated that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light and we have clear observation that fully supports this assumption.
Therefore, so far you couldn't offer any single observation that could reject Theory D, while I have offered almost unlimited problems in the BBT.
Each one of them knocks down the fiction that is called BBT.

[Bored chemist]

Yes it is.
I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation.
I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR.
In order to understand that, you have to understand how BBR really works

"I have deeply explained why an infinite sphere with the same density everywhere should set a Black body radiation."
Even if that's correct, it isn't relevant.

The thing you said
"Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
 was wrong.

Why do you think it is helpful to say that sort of thing.
I provided a reasonable counter example.

Either explain how a box with 2.7K walls would not look like the CMBR or accept that the CMBR does not prove that the universe is infinite.

Also accept that, because it doesn't; You are wrong.

That's all there   is to it here.
You keep on saying stuff even after it has been demonstrated that you are factually incorrect.


"I also explained that a bang (any sort of bang) would never ever carry a BBR."
Should I take that as an answer to my question about your understanding of spectroscopy?
It also leads me to wonder if you think teh BB was actually a bang.
Do you understand that the term was originally intended as an insult?

[Bobolink]

Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?

Of course not.  How could 2 objects that have a recession velocity of 7.5 x 10^-5 km/s move apart 26 Bly in only 390,000 years?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:32:09
Therefore, do you agree that after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?

Of course not.  How could 2 objects that have a recession velocity of 7.5 x 10^-5 km/s move apart 26 Bly in only 390,000 years?

Well, if you believe in the BBT and you also confirm that the expansion rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than this MUST be the outcome.
So, the answer is located in the 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
Each segment of 3 million light years, contributes 75Km/sec.

Actually it was a big surprise also for me.
So many thanks to Hlac for his clarification:

The math illiteracy displayed here is amazing.
If the volume goes up by 8 every 1200 years, then in 13BY the volume would grow by 8^11,000,000, not 8 * 11M.

In any case, if you still disagree with my calculation or Halc clarification, than please try to set the calculation by yourself and get the same results.

[Bobolink]

Well, if you believe in the BBT and you also confirm that the expansion rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than this MUST be the outcome.
So, the answer is located in the 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years.
Each segment of 3 million light years, contribute 75Km/sec.

I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years".  That means the following:
H = 74 km/s/Mparsec.  Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.
Therefore your statement, "after only 390,000 years a universe with a radius of only 3LY should be expanded to a universe with a radius of 25.74 BLy?", is obviously wrong.

[Kryptid]

If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?

You are misunderstanding my question. I'm not talking about physicists telling you that the Big Bang theory is correct. I'm talking about them telling you that your understanding of several basic physics concepts are flawed. That conservation of energy doesn't work the way you claim it does, for example.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I agree with your statement that "the expansion rate 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years". That means the following:
H = 74 km/s/Mparsec. 

Thanks
Yes, that is correct.

That means the following:
Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec.

Well, I'm not sure what do you mean by this calculation.
Let's look again on the following expansion rate of 74 km/s/Mparsec
My understanding is that if there are two galaxies at a distance of one Mparsec from each other, (and they are not moving in space) than due to the expansion in space, they will move away from each other at (or relative velocity) 74 Km/s.
If the galaxies are located at one LY away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:
74km/s / 3 Ly = 24.666 Km/sec./ one Ly
If the galaxies are located only one Km away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:
26.666Km/sec / 9.46 x 10^12 km = 2.818 10^-12 Km/sec/one Km.

So, can you please explain what do you mean by:
Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec

[Bored chemist]

A light year is about 3 parsecs
A Mparsec is about 3 million light years.

74 km/s/Mparsec is about 74 km/sec per 3 million light years
or about  25 km/s per million light year
or about 25m/s per thousand light years
or about 25mm/ second per light year
That's about the width of the word "dimwit" per second per light year.

If the galaxies are located at one LY away from each other, than their relative velocity should be:
74km/s / 3 Ly = 24.666 Km/sec./ one Ly

About a million fold wrong.

[Bored chemist]

If 100,000 scientists/physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists will tell you that 1+1 = 3 would you accept it?

The first thing I would do would be check the units.
1 cubit +1 cubit  is about three feet.

[Bobolink]

So, can you please explain what do you mean by:
Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/sec

I hope you realize 1,000,000 parsecs does not equal 1 parsec.
So 74 km/sec/Mparsec does not equal 74 km/sec/parsec.
Get it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I hope you realize 1,000,000 parsecs does not equal 1 parsec.
So 74 km/sec/Mparsec does not equal 74 km/sec/parsec.
Get it?

Thanks
Yes, the error is clear to me.
So let me update the calculation

One light year by wiki: "The light-year is a unit of length used to express astronomical distances and measures about 9.46 trillion kilometers (9.46 x 10^12 km)"
3Ly = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^12 Km
3MLy = 3* 10^6 * 9.46 x 10^12 km = 28.38 * 10^18 Km
1 Year = 31556926 Seconds?
Therefore, 75Km/sec = 31556926* 75 =  2,366,769,450 Km/y = 2.366 * 10 ^9 km/year

One light year = 9.46 x 10^12 km
So 3MLy = 3 * 9.46 x 10^12 km * 10^6 = 28.38 * 10^18 Km

How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?
28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.

As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.

Therefore, the formula for the radius should be as follow"
After the first 12 *10^9 years interval time, the first 3 MLy Increases to 6 - which means 2 (or 2^1) Times 3MLy
After the second 12 *10^9 years interval time,  a distance of 6 MLy increases to 12 - which means 4 (or 2^2) times 3MLy
After the third 12 *10^9 years interval time, a distance of 12 MLy increases to 24 - which means 8 (or 2^3) times 3MLy
..
After the n times 12 *10^9 years interval time, a distance of 3*2^(n-1) MLY increases to 3*2^n MLy

Therefore if we start the expansion while the radius of the whole Universe is only 3MLY than:
The formula for the radius is: R (n) = 3*2^n MLy
The formula for the time is: T (n) =  n x 12 10^9 Years.

After n =12
Radius (n=12) = 3 * 2^n MLy = 3*4096 Mly = 12.228 Billion LY.
T (time after n=12) = 12 * 12 * 10^9  = 144 BY
So, if the radius of the whole Universe is 3MLY, than 144 By are needed to set a radius of 12.228BLY.
Now we get a different problem.
I hope that this time my calculation is correct.
Please verify and advice

[Bored chemist]

I hope that this time my calculation is correct.

You hoped the last one was.

[Kryptid]

Well?

You are misunderstanding my question. I'm not talking about physicists telling you that the Big Bang theory is correct. I'm talking about them telling you that your understanding of several basic physics concepts are flawed. That conservation of energy doesn't work the way you claim it does, for example.

[Bobolink]

As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.

Nope, that's wrong too.  Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving. 
Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s.  The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.  See the problem with your calculation?

[Bored chemist]

As the expanding rate is about 75 kilometers per second per 3 million light years, than every 12 *10^9 years each segment of 3MLY is actually double its size.

Nope, that's wrong too.  Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving. 
Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s.  The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.  See the problem with your calculation?

Thanks for that clarification.
I wonder what happens if we continue the series
6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.
12 million About  300 KM/S
12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.
What a weird coincidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Well?

One moment please. I need to understand the issue with this expansion rate calculation.

Using rough numbers, the recession velocity of an object 3Mly distant is 74 km/s.  The recession velocity of an object 6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.  See the problem with your calculation?

Yes. Those are the numbers that I'm using in my calculations (or almost 75 instead of 74, and 150 instead of 148..)

Nope, that's wrong too.  Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.

No, I'm not going to give up on the math.
"Hand waving" is an action for believers. I'm not there yet.
As you claim that I have an error in my calculation, than would you kindly set it by yourself?
This calculation is very important as I see a contradiction in the BBT.
In one hand our scientists claim that due to this expansion rate, we get a minimal observable Universe radius of 46BLY, while on the other hand in the following article it is stated that it should take 3 trillion years to clear the sky from galaxies:
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
"One sad side effect of this expansion is that most of the galaxies will have receded over this horizon in about 3 trillion years"
So, I would like to verify this contradiction by real calculation.
Therefore, I insist to calculate the real impact of the expansion rate.
So, let me ask the following:
Let's assume that we could go back in time to the moment that the radius of the whole Universe was only of 3MLY.
How long it should take the expansion from this moment to increase the radius to 13 Bly?
Please use the expansion rate to prove your understanding by calculation.

Thanks for that clarification.
I wonder what happens if we continue the series
6Mly distant is 148 km/sec.
12 million About  300 KM/S
12 billion : about... well, nearly the speed of light.
What a weird coincidence.

There is no coincidence.
I assume that our scientists have based the expansion rate exactly on this assumption.
So, those scientists that set the expansion rate didn't try to understand the impact on time.
As you accept the "hand waiving" than it should be Ok for all of you.
However, some other scientists have set the calculation.
Their Math outcome is very clear -
"One sad side effect of this expansion is that most of the galaxies will have receded over this horizon in about 3 trillion years"
Hence, there must be a contradiction in the time.
How could it be that one scientists group (that set the expansion rate) claim that due to this expansion rate we can push a galaxy from 3MLY to a distance of over than 46 BLY in just 13 BY, while other scientists group claim that in order to do less than that (Push a galaxy from 3MLY to a distance of 13 BLY) we actually need over than 3 trillion years or 3,000BY?
Don't you see the contradiction?

Therefore, I insist to calculate the time.

[Bobolink]

Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.
https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.
https://www.mira.org/ana/hubblconst.htm

In the article it is stated:

Time = distance to a given galaxy /its velocity recession = age of the Universe.

This is a fatal mistake!!!
Based on the expansion rate, the recession velocity is just a temporary velocity that represents its current distance.
It is quite clear that in the past the distance was shorter and therefore its recession velocity was lower.
Don't forget that at the past this galaxy could be located at a distance of only 3MLY.
At that time its recession velocity was only 72 Km/s due to Ho
H = 72 km/s/Mpc
So, it is our obligation to calculate how long time it took the galaxy to increase its distance and velocity.
Based on my calculation it should take 12 By just to cross the first 3MLy

How many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?
28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.

Therefore, that simple calculation doesn't represent the reality of space expansion.
How could they make such a sever mistake?