[jeffreyH]

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.

This means that the space in-between the emitter and the source has expanded over time. The further away the object the more the expansion and the greater the red shift.

Doesn't this tell you something? Maybe over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

We can never know where the galaxies are 'now'. The information hasn't reached us yet. Science works on a principle called observation. Maybe someday you will read about it and be amazed. It will be your lightbulb moment. Or maybe all your switched have tripped. That could explain why you keep typing nonsense onto a science forum.

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?

[Bored chemist]

I assume that our scientists have based the expansion rate exactly on this assumption.

Then you are an idiot.
Because you posted  a link to a page that tells you that it is done by looking at the apparent brightness of Cepheid variable stars.
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
It's now clear that you are making judgements, not on the basis on the facts, but on what you want to believe.
You have abandoned science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

This means that the space in-between the emitter and the source has expanded over time. The further away the object the more the expansion and the greater the red shift.
Doesn't this tell you something? Maybe over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

You are missing the key point in my message.
If over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating, than as we go back on time the velocity must go down.
Therefore, at the early stage of our universe, after the Big bang, most of the galaxies/matter were located nearby. So, a galaxy that is located today at the far end of the Universe (13BLY away) could be located at the early time at a distance of only 3MLY away from us.
Due to the expansion rate at that early time, this galaxy was probably moving away from us at only 75 Km/sec.
So, if you agree with this explanation, than you also have to understand that at this rate, it should take it about 12 BY just to cross the first 3MLY.
Therefore, a galaxy that we see/observe today at a distance of 13BLY, can't get there in only 13.8 BY.
Much longer time is needed.
So, this by itself should kill the BBT.
If you wish to contredict this understanding, than it is your obligation to show the math for the time interval that is needed from starting velocity of 75Km/s (at a distance of 3ML) till the speed of light (at 13BLY).
I'm not going to accept any sort of hand waving.

Perhaps you should give up on the math and just stick with hand waving.

Only real math please.

https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html

In this articale it is stated:
"The new measurement doesn't just tell scientists how fast the universe is expanding, but helps shed light on the mystery of why this expansion is accelerating. Dark energy is the name given to whatever is causing the universe's expansion to speed up. Yet scientists have little idea what it is. "
"This is a huge puzzle," Freedman said
How long are we going to read about "puzzled scientists" that "have little idea what it is"?
It is clear that those scientists don't have a clue how our universe really works.
As long as they keep the BBT, they will surly observe more and more contradictions to this irrelevant theory.

Then you are an idiot.

Shame on you.
Do you really think that this negative approach will help you to reject my message?
Actually, It is clear indication that you can't contradict the idea that in 13BY there is no way to set a galaxy at 13BLY away.
If you could prove it, you would surly show you calculation.
It is pathetic. How miserable you are
It's time for you to apologize..
Without it, I have no intention to read your messages any more.

[Bored chemist]

It's time for you to apologize..

I apologize for pointing out that you seem to be an idiot who didn't understand that, having pointed out how the expansion of the universe is calculated, then claimed that it was calculated differently.

[Bored chemist]

Without it, I have no intention to read your messages any more.

Brought to you by the "Na naa nnaa. I'm not listening" school of scientific debate.

Did you somehow think that made you look better?

[Bored chemist]

If you could prove it, you would surly show you calculation.

I pointed out where you had already posted that someone had done the calculation.

Because you posted  a link to a page that tells you that it is done by looking at the apparent brightness of Cepheid variable stars.
https://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html

And I also did point it out, in the first place by calculation.

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.

If you don't want to get called an idiot, don't act like one.

[Bobolink]

If over time the expansion of the universe is accelerating, than as we go back on time the velocity must go down.

You really do not have a clue what you are talking about.  It amazes me that you could have so little knowledge of basic astronomy.  Usually you cranks have at least some basic knowledge of the subject before you make up your hair brain conjectures.  None of you can do math but at least most you guys have a wiki level understanding.  Except you don't even have that.
The current explanation of expansion states that in the first tiny fraction of a second the universe began expanding in the next tiny fraction of a second the universe expanded WAY faster than light and after that fraction of a second it continued too expand at a much slower rate.  That rate of expansion slowed over next 10 billion years.  Approximately 4 billion years ago the rate of expansion began to accelerate and continues today.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The current explanation of expansion states that in the first tiny fraction of a second the universe began expanding in the next tiny fraction of a second the universe expanded WAY faster than light and after that fraction of a second it continued too expand at a much slower rate.  That rate of expansion slowed over next 10 billion years.  Approximately 4 billion years ago the rate of expansion began to accelerate and continues today.

Well, I clearly know that theory.
However, this kind of explanation is just a "hand waiving".
We discuss science.
Please show the math for the size of our universe.
I have tried to understand the size of the Universe after the inflation.
I have found that it was in a size of 1/10 of our galaxy:
"It is very difficult to quantify the size of the observable universe after inflation ended. We do not know how 'big' it was when inflation started, how rapidly it doubled in size ['inflated'], or how long the inflationary period persisted. Estimates of size after inflation vary wildly. Alan Guth guestimated it was around the size of a marble. Lineweaver estimates the universe grew by a factor of ~10E30 during inflation - re: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305179v1. By that standard, if you assume the observable universe was a planck length prior to inflation, you end up with a size of about 1.6E-05 meters after inflation. If you assume it was the size of a proton, you get a universe of about 1.6E15 meters, or around 1/10 the size of our galaxy.
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/comparable-size-of-the-observable-universe-immediately-after-inflation.731775/"
Please remember that the expansion rate is about 75Km/sec/3MLY.
You have stated that Expansion rate at 3 ly  = 75 x 10^-6 km/s or about 1 cm/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.

After the inflation, the size of the Universe was in the size of 1/10 of our galaxy.
Therefore, we should calculate the expansion rate for 1/10 galaxy.
If the Milky way is 100,000LY, than 1/10 is 10,000Ly or 10^4 Ly.
Therefore, the expansion rate is:
75 x 10^-6 km/s  *10^4  /3 * 10^6 = 2.5 10^-8 Km/s = 2.5 10^-3 cm/s per 10,000 Ly.
If you think that the expansion rate was different, than please introduce the no. for each time interval.
I insist to set math for the whole process of the expansion - step by step and verify if it is feasible to get an observable universe of 92 BLY from the size of a 1/10 galaxy in only 13.8 BY.
Please no more "hand waiving".
Only real math.

[Bored chemist]

Can I just check on something?
Have you abandoned the idea from your first few lines- the idea that the CMBR means that the universe  is infinite.
Because, if you have not, then your model is clearly not any better than the usual one and you are not in a position to "insist" on anything.
So

Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?

On what basis do you claim that it is unrealistic?
It is exactly what we would expect (and what was, in fact, predicted)  from the very red-shifted black body radiation that arose from the early universe when the expansion cooled it to a point where atoms formed among a high density plasma.

If the universe started off hot and dense then expanded, a CMBR is not just "realistic", it's inevitable.

Also, if the universe had cold black walls, a CMBR would be inevitable.

So there are at least two scenarios where the universe is finite, but there is a CMBR like the one we observe.

So it is simply illogical to say that a CMBR implies an infinite universe.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
" a CMBR is consistent with an infinite Universe"
"a CMBR means that we have an  infinite universe"

The important difference is that only one of them is true.

[Bobolink]

Well, I clearly know that theory.
However, this kind of explanation is just a "hand waiving".
We discuss science.

Dave, you are ignorant of the BBT and science in general.  Your 'theory' D is tripe.  You haven't discussed science.  All you do is try twist scientific ideas and try to fit them into your silly rambling 'theory'.  You will never acknowledge that you're ideas are wrong and silly because they make perfect sense to you.  What you don't realize is that your 'theory' makes sense to you because it is based on your very limited knowledge. 
For crying out loud, your goofy idea violates relativity, with no explanation of how that could possibly happen.  You and thousands of others like you have these silly 'super theories' that are based on misconceptions and ignorance.  All of you bask in the fantasy that you are smarter than all the great minds of science. 
I know there is nothing; no evidence, no math and no experiment that would cause you to admit you are wrong, because that would ruin the fantasy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I know there is nothing; no evidence, no math and no experiment that would cause you to admit you are wrong,

You clearly know that this is nonsense.
You have found an error in my calculation and I have immediately accepted your important verification.
However, it seems that now you have no answer to my question:

I insist to set math for the whole process of the expansion - step by step and verify if it is feasible to get an observable universe of 92 BLY from the size of a 1/10 galaxy in only 13.8 BY.
Please no more "hand waiving".
Only real math.

If you had an answer to my question, you would surly introduce it and close the discussion.
However, it is quite clear that you have no answer to this question.

Therefore, you continue with your hand waiving and as usual use the best tactic to "kill" the other side by highlighting his poor knowledge and ignorant in science:

Dave, you are ignorant of the BBT and science in general.

Sorry, you have lost your case
You had a wish that the Inflation would help you to save the case.
However, the Inflation process can just set the Universe at only 10,000 Ly. No more than that.
Now it is impossible mission for the space expansion to take the Universe from this size and bring it to 92BLY in only 13BY.
So, instead of highlighting your math calculation or accept the idea that you have lost the case, you hope that if the other side will be afraid to show himself as an ignorant, he will have to accept whatever you say just to be in the winning side.
Sorry, I do not afraid from you nonsense about my knowledge.
I do care only about science law.
Hence, let's close the discussion on this issue by concluding that the science community can't backup the unrealistic expansion by math.
Now, you are more than welcome to continue with your hand waiving as you wish!

[Bored chemist]

You have found an error in my calculation and I have immediately accepted your important verification.

I found another  problem or two, but you haven't addressed them.

However, the Inflation process can just set the Universe at only 10,000 Ly. No more than that.

What orifice did you pull that number from?

Now it is impossible mission for the space expansion to take the Universe from this size and bring it to 92BLY in only 13BY.

Is that an attempt at proof by loud assertion?
It's not enough to say it is impossible; you have to explain why.

or accept the idea that you have lost the case,

There's no reason to suppose that we have.

Hence, let's close the discussion on this issue by concluding that the science community can't backup the unrealistic expansion by math.

You can't close a discussion by ignoring the facts.

I do care only about science law.

Why not learn some then? It can be very rewarding.

[Kryptid]

I do care only about science law.

Oh please. If that was true, you'd quit posting ideas that break the laws of physics.

[Bobolink]

I insist to set math for the whole process of the expansion - step by step and verify if it is feasible to get an observable universe of 92 BLY from the size of a 1/10 galaxy in only 13.8 BY.

The observable universe is about 13.8 bly the actual size is about 93 bly.

I have corrected your math 2 or 3 times, I am done.  Here is how the age is computed.  This is from Wiki:

If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age is then given by an expression of the form



where is the Hubble parameter and the function F depends only on the fractional contribution to the universe's energy content that comes from various components. The first observation that one can make from this formula is that it is the Hubble parameter that controls that age of the universe, with a correction arising from the matter and energy content. So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the Hubble time, the inverse of the Hubble parameter. With a value for around 69 km/s/Mpc, the Hubble time evaluates to = 14.5 billion years.[6]

Spend as much time on this as you want.  If you think it is wrong, then call your nearest university or college and talk with them.

Now getting back to your conjecture, why do you think it is ok to violate relativity?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I have corrected your math 2 or 3 times, I am done.

Ok
So, it is clear that you and all the science community didn't set any math to verify the minimal time interval that is needed to expand the Universe from 10,000Ly to 20,000, from 20,000 to 40,000 and so on till 92BLY. .
Once we agree with that, we can continue the discussion.
So, in order to bypass this problem you continue with your hand waving and ask for some help from Mr. Friedmann.

If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation.

However, do you know that the Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic?
However, our universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic. This was very clear also to Mr. friedmann.
Therefore, in order to bypass this problem he had assumed that empirically, this is justified on scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
Hence, you can't use Friedmann equation for a universe which is smaller than 100Mpc.
So, you can't just take the Universe at the size of 10,000Ly and set Friedmann equations which is relevant only for scales larger than ~100 Mpc.
As you try to do so, you set a severe violation that is the base for the severe mistake at the age/size of our Universe.

It is also important to highlight at this point that our scientists don't really see any sort of space expansion.
They only see expansion in the galaxies.
As they couldn't find any real logical answer for that, they came with this imagination that called space expansion.
In real physics law there is no room for space expansion or time expansion.
Therefore, the  whole concept of space expansion is a severe violation of physics law.

However, if you use a violation element as space expansion in your theory, you also should discover it sooner or later.
So, in real theory you must set the expectation and verify the results.
Therefore, if our scientists assume that there is space expansion, they must understand the outcome of that activity and backup it with real observation.
We all know that In 1929, Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos.
So the question many asked at that time was, just how much was the expansion slowing?
If the space expanding was slowing, than we all could say that it confirms the expectation and therefore it also confirms the BBT.
"Surprisingly" in the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!
At that point, the science community had to look for better theory for our Universe.
However, and as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":
Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.

ow getting back to your conjecture, why do you think it is ok to violate relativity?

I have already deeply explained that there is no contradiction between relativity to Theory D

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.

With regards to Relativity
It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.
Therefore at nearby aria we would never ever see any Star/galaxy or even photon crossing faster than the speed of light.
However, in a very far distance, it might be different. Therefore, we clearly see/know that at the far end of our visible Universe galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
This by itself doesn't set any contradiction to the concept of space expansion or theory D.
However, at nearby aria it is totally different.
Nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
However, based on the inflation theory, at the early phase of the Universe, the matter was very concentrated and located nearby while the expansion was faster than the speed of light.
That theory clearly contradicts Einstein relativity concept.
Therefore, I reject the whole Inflation process as it is unrealistic due to relativity.

[Kryptid]

It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.

Ha ha, no.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It seems to me that Einstein had based this law on relatively close distances.

Ha ha, no.

Few words about Albert Einstein and its relativity theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Born: March 14, 1879, Ulm
Died: April 18, 1955, Princeton, New Jersey
In 1914, he was elected to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, where he remained for 19 years. Soon after publishing his work on special relativity, Einstein began working to extend the theory to gravitational fields; he then published a paper on general relativity in 1916, introducing his theory of gravitation."

So, Einstein had published his theories about special/general relativity before the ending of the First World War.
At that time no one really considered that galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light.
So, the relativity was perfectly OK for the information that was available at that time (about a compact universe without any ability to move galaxies faster than the speed of light at the far end of our visible universe).
Einstein had passed away is 1955 while our scientists have discovered the ultra high velocity of far away galaxies only in 1990.
Therefore, he and the whole science community didn't know back in 1916 and up to 1990 that there is any possibility that far away galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.
Hence, we can't blame Einstein for missing this key information in his formula of relativity.
However, in the same token, those scientists that brought the idea of the BBT were positively sure that the expansion is slowing. Therefore, before 1990 they clearly didn't have a basic clue about the idea that far away galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.

We all know that In 1929, Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos.
So the question many asked at that time was, just how much was the expansion slowing?
If the space expanding was slowing, than we all could say that it confirms the expectation and therefore it also confirms the BBT.
"Surprisingly" in the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up!

Therefore, it was expected that this discovery should eliminate the BBT.
So, please how can you tell now that only the BBT can explain that phenomenon while in reality it was a clear contradiction with the BBT.
Do you really think that you can change the history?
However, somehow our scientist came with brilliant ideas: Dark matter and inflation.
1. Inflation - The inflation is a direct contradiction with the relativity.

based on the inflation theory, at the early phase of the Universe, the matter was very concentrated and located nearby while the expansion was faster than the speed of light.

There is no way to get locally velocities which is faster than the speed of light. This idea contradicts with the Relativity. Therefore, the inflation is just imagination.
2. Dark matter

as usual, in order to keep the BBT alive they have invented one more "saver" element for the BBT. They call it "Dark energy":
Unfortunately, our scientists don't have any clue about it or how did it had evolved from the BBT.

However, In order to validate the Dark matter our scientists have used the" forbidden" cosmological constant that Einstein have set in his formula. They have totally neglected the simple fact that later on he had stated that this was his biggest mistake:
"In many Einstein biographies, it is claimed that Einstein referred to the cosmological constant in later years as his "biggest blunder". The astrophysicist Mario Livio has recently cast doubt on this claim, suggesting that it may be exaggerated.[196]
So till 1990 no one really consider to use this forbidden cosmological constant and there was no need for that as our scientists were sure that due to the BBT the expansion is slowing down.
Therefore, In order to bypass that killing discovery, our scientists have decided to use that cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his request. Therefore, it is a clear violation on Einstein formula.
So again, do you really think that you can change the history?

[Bored chemist]

You seem to have forgotten to address this

Can I just check on something?
Have you abandoned the idea from your first few lines- the idea that the CMBR means that the universe  is infinite.
Because, if you have not, then your model is clearly not any better than the usual one and you are not in a position to "insist" on anything.
So

Can you please prove that unrealistic idea?

On what basis do you claim that it is unrealistic?
It is exactly what we would expect (and what was, in fact, predicted)  from the very red-shifted black body radiation that arose from the early universe when the expansion cooled it to a point where atoms formed among a high density plasma.

If the universe started off hot and dense then expanded, a CMBR is not just "realistic", it's inevitable.

Also, if the universe had cold black walls, a CMBR would be inevitable.

So there are at least two scenarios where the universe is finite, but there is a CMBR like the one we observe.

So it is simply illogical to say that a CMBR implies an infinite universe.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
" a CMBR is consistent with an infinite Universe"
"a CMBR means that we have an  infinite universe"

The important difference is that only one of them is true.

Do you accept that you were mistaken in thinking that a microwave background implies an infinite universe?

[Bobolink]

I have already deeply explained that there is no contradiction between relativity to Theory D

No you haven't explained it.  Your conjecture states that galaxies can move through space faster than light.  That clearly and unambiguously violates relativity.  If your conjecture is true then you have falsified relativity. 
How do you explain this?  Is Einstein wrong or are you wrong?   

[Kryptid]

Maybe you should go study what relativity actually claims instead of straw-manning it.