[Bored chemist]

Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?

No
I think we should reject your interpretation of what they say.
But, I'd also like you to address the fact that you start your idea with a non sequitur.
Ten pages on, you haven't done that yet.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?

You reject a lot of what scientists say, so why would you care?

I agree, there is no difference.

The Size of the Universe is The most important aspect in any theory of the Universe.
When our scientists have considered the Big Bang Theory, they were positively sure that its size is quite compact and our Universe is the only one in the whole infinite and empty space.
Now it is clear that the universe has no maximal size. So it could be infinite or at least much bigger than this compact size of the Observable Universe (92BLY) and it might not be there by itself. There might be infinite other Universes around our observable Universe.

I do understand why those scientists claim that "There cannot be a maximum distance" without setting the punch line that - it must be Infinite.
As the meaning of Infinite is the end of the BBT.
So, they clearly understand that the Universe MUST be infinite but they try to whisper it under the table::
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
Not even one word about the real meaning of : "there cannot be a maximum distance"

In the other article they claim:
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/
"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary."
They even add that "Some physicists have estimated the size of the universe to be somewhere in the range of 200–250 billion light years."
So, we can say - Yes they claim that the Universe is/could be Infinite.
However, in order to keep the BBT alive they immediately add: "or it could end shortly after this observable region".
Is it real? How can we believe in such a fiction?
It is very clear that our scientists do whatever it takes to protect the BBT. In one hand they are obliged to give us the updated information that the Universe IS infinite, while on the Other hand they try to minimize that understanding by claiming that it also might be small enough (observable size) in order to hold the BBT
Therefore, they try to go in between the lines of highlighting the real understanding about our infinite Universe and still give hope to the BBT believer that we can still believe in that theory.
So, if in the future we will find key evidence that the Universe is infinite, they will say: Yes, we knew it long time ago.
The Other idea of the multiverses is a final killing element for the BBT:
"Other scientists suggest that our universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses."
Let's think about infinite number of Universes around our observable Universe.
I hope that we all agree that they should behave more or less in the same way.
So, the same BBT process had set all of them. Infinite Universes - Multiverses!
What is the chance to set Infinite Universes at the same time while keeping a requested distance from each other?
Zero or less than zero?
Let's assume that 13.8 BY ago the Big bang sets at the same moment infinite number of universes.
Therefore, in each Universe the Inflation/expansion process must work at the same way.
Sooner or later due to that expansion in space of each individual Universe two nearby Universes must collide with each other.
At this collision point the speed of the matter from one universe could be much faster than the speed of light with regards to the coming matter from the other Universe - due to the expansion process at each Universe.
So, theoretically at some point we should see galaxies penetrating to our Universe at much faster than the speed of light.
What is the chance for that?
How can we believe in that kind of fiction that is called Multiverse?
That proves that we only have ONE real Universe in the open infinite space and that Universe MUST be infinite.
It also proves that there is no curvature in space.
I have already explained why the Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe MUST be Infinite.


So, with regards to your question:
It is clear to me that even those scientists try to protect the BBT.
They don't say clearly and loudly that the Universe is infinite and the observable Universe is just a fiction.
They actually whisper the real data
 So, any real scientist (which by definition should believe in the BBT) will do whatever it takes to keep it alive.
However, they also have an obligation for the real data.
Therefore, they hide the real data in the article and try to keep the BBT under any contradiction with that data.
This is not new for me.
This is the normal way how the science really works.
However, only if we read carefully between the lines we do understand the real impact of their message
So, those scientists behave exactly as all the others - Give the data and still protect the BBT.

In any case, do you agree that once we confirm that the Universe is infinite, it's the time to set the BBT in the garbage?

[Kryptid]

In any case, do you agree that once we confirm that the Universe is infinite, it's the time to set the BBT in the garbage?

Nope.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In any case, do you agree that once we confirm that the Universe is infinite, it's the time to set the BBT in the garbage?

Nope.

Our scientists claim that 13.8BY ago the early Universe was very compact and tinny. Therefore, all the matter at that early Universe was located nearby.
You have specifically claimed that due to that issue the far away galaxies appears bigger.
So, how the BBT could expand the early & tinny Universe into that infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?

[Bored chemist]

In any case, do you agree that once we confirm that the Universe is infinite, it's the time to set the BBT in the garbage?

Do you agree that, once we accept the big bang, it's equally clear that the universe is finite?

[Bored chemist]

So it could be infinite or at least much bigger than this compact size of the Observable Universe

Those are two totally different options, aren't they?
Please stop conflating them.

[Bored chemist]

observable Universe is just a fiction

mic drop.

[Kryptid]

So, how the BBT could expand the early & tinny Universe into that infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?

It doesn't have to. For all we know, the Big Bang could have happened inside of a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe. In that case, the Big Bang would have just been the beginning of our own visible Universe, but not necessarily the Universe as a whole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

For all we know, the Big Bang could have happened inside of a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe.

If there was  a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe, than 13.8 BY ago that early previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe was already there.
So, why do you claim that 13.8 BY ago all the matter/galaxies of the Universe were located nearby while the early universe was infinitely-large Universe?
How the BBT could start while the whole infinite Universe is already full with matter?
What is the chance that our galaxy, the far away galaxy or even all the galaxies that we observe actually small part of that infinitely-large Universe?
In other words, what is the added value of the BBT? Why do we need this theory for the early infinitely-large Universe while all the matter/galaxies were already there 13.8 BY ago?

If the BBT took place under the condition of an infinitely-large Universe, then why it couldn't start again tomorrow or next year?
Why our scientists don't care about the creation process of that early infinitely-large Universe?
Why they only focus on the last 13.8 BY time interval? What about the earlier time of the infinitely-large Universe?
Why they don't offer any kind of creation theory for that early infinitely-large Universe?

[Kryptid]

So, why do you claim that 13.8 BY ago all the matter/galaxies of the Universe were located nearby while the early universe was infinitely-large Universe?

Whoever said that I did? Only the matter in the visible Universe need to have been nearby.

How the BBT could start while the whole infinite Universe is already full with matter?

Nobody knows what caused the Big Bang, but there's no obvious reason why being inside of another, larger universe should be a problem for it.

What is the added value of the BBT? Why do we need this theory for the early infinitely-large Universe that was already there 13.8 BY ago?

Because it explains the origin of our visible Universe.

If the BBT took place under the condition of an infinitely-large Universe, then why it couldn't start again tomorrow or next year?

I don't see why it couldn't. For all we know, there could be an infinite number of new Big Bangs happening all the time in far away places.

Why our scientists don't care about the creation process of that early infinitely-large Universe?

(1) Nobody said that they don't, and (2) this infinitely-large Universe I speak of is purely hypothetical.

Why they only focus on the last 13.8 BY time interval? What about the earlier time of the infinitely-large Universe?

Those 13.8 billion years is the only history we have access to. We can't observe anything outside of our visible Universe.

Why they don't offer any kind of creation theory for that early infinitely-large Universe?

There's no need for a theory to explain something that isn't even known to be true.

[Bored chemist]

But, I'd also like you to address the fact that you start your idea with a non sequitur.
Ten pages on, you haven't done that yet.

[Halc]

When our scientists have considered the Big Bang Theory, they were positively sure that its size is quite compact and our Universe is the only one in the whole infinite and empty space.

This statement is self contradictory, typical of you.
If there is this whole infinite space (empty or not), then the universe isn't very compact, is it?
No scientist was 'positively sure' of this contradictory view.

There might be infinite other Universes around our observable Universe.

That would put them elsewhere in this universe, which is sort of a level-1 multiverse, which yes, is the consensus view.

I do understand why those scientists claim that "There cannot be a maximum distance" without setting the punch line that - it must be Infinite.
...
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."

This line you keep quoting says that if the cosmological principle is accepted, then the universe can have no edge.  If you don't accept that principle, then an edge is possible. Said principle is not a proven thing, despite the assertive wording of that statement.

There is no hard evidence that the universe doesn't have an edge as close as 6 BLY (proper distance) away since no light reaching us now has ever been that far away.  That makes the minimum size of the universe under 12 BLY so long as we're at the center of it.
A perfect simulator of Earth (from the beginning to today) would in principle only need to simulate that finite radius.

Not even one word about the real meaning of : "there cannot be a maximum distance"

It would be a non-sequitur if they said that.

In the other article they claim:
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/
"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary."

This is written by an unknown non-scientist. There are many errors in it, and unbacked claims.
The statement above says essentially: 'Maybe', which is a pretty weak assertion, and thus likely true.

They even add that "Some physicists have estimated the size of the universe to be somewhere in the range of 200–250 billion light years."

No reference to this claim, so I doubt this. Plenty of other facts are reported out of context. Most of the 'facts' mentioned in the article have references, but not that one.

It is very clear that our scientists do whatever it takes to protect the BBT. In one hand they are obliged to give us the updated information that the Universe IS infinite, while on the Other hand they try to minimize that understanding by claiming that it also might be small enough (observable size) in order to hold the BBT

BBT makes no explicit claim about the size of the universe, so there's nothing to protect.

The Other idea of the multiverses is a final killing element for the BBT:
"Other scientists suggest that our universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses."

Factually wrong. In fact, it links an article talking about just 4 multiverses (or 4 levels/types of multiverse), a number considerably below 'infinite'.  Each multiverse contains potentially infinite universes, but 'infinite number of multiverses' is pretty meaningless.

What is the chance to set Infinite Universes at the same time while keeping a requested distance from each other?

'At the same time' is meaningful only for level-1 and level-3 multiverse.  A level-1 alternate observable universe (a universe as observed from somewhere other than Earth) does indeed have a meaningful distance from here.  A level 3 (superpositions) has no spatial separation.  It is here.
Talking about the where and when of levels 2 (eternal inflation theory) and 4 (other structures) is completely meaningless.

Let's assume that 13.8 BY ago the Big bang sets at the same moment infinite number of universes.

Again, that works for levels 1 and 3.  The other levels are not part of the BBT. Level 3 is pretty much part of QM theory, not BBT, but BBT does not deny QM.

Therefore, in each Universe the Inflation/expansion process must work at the same way.

No.  In some (1, 3 again) the laws of physics are the same, and in others not.

Sooner or later due to that expansion in space of each individual Universe two nearby Universes must collide with each other.

You're envisioning only level 1 here, and yes, they can overlap.

At this collision point the speed of the matter from one universe could be much faster than the speed of light with regards to the coming matter from the other Universe - due to the expansion process at each Universe.

No.  BBT says each is moving apart from any other.  We're at such a collision point right here, and there's no particular violence going on. You asserting otherwise violates the cosmological principle.
You seem to lack even the most rudimentary understanding of the BBT  Start with the cosmological principle and if that is violated, you're not describing the BBT.

For all we know, the Big Bang could have happened inside of a previously-existing, infinitely-large Universe.

If the BBT took place under the condition of an infinitely-large Universe, then why it couldn't start again tomorrow or next year?

I don't see why it couldn't. For all we know, there could be an infinite number of new Big Bangs happening all the time in far away places.

This makes it sound like new bangs happening at a location in pre-existing locations in space, which isn't how the theory works.  Yes, something like eternal inflation theory provides a sort of container for new universe bubbles to occur (said level 2 multiverse), but space and time do not hold the meaning that does in our spacetime, so language like 'far away places' doesn't have the meaning that Dave is trying to give it.

[Kryptid]

This makes it sound like new bangs happening at a location in pre-existing locations in space, which isn't how the theory works.

I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out that it could potentially be true, but we'd never know it because we couldn't observe it. It's just one way that there could have been both a Big Bang and an infinitely-large Universe at the same time.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28
What is the added value of the BBT? Why do we need this theory for the early infinitely-large Universe that was already there 13.8 BY ago?

Because it explains the origin of our visible Universe.

Are you sure that the Visible Universe is what we think?
I prefer to call the Visible Universe -- the "BBT Universe".
As it is all about the BBT!!!
Do you agree that the only valid data is the redshift. The redshift of the galaxies and the redshift of the CMB?
So, it is all about how do we convert that redshift data into real meaning knowledge.
If we have an error in the converting process of the redshift data than it is clear that the same visible Universe will suddenly looks differently.
Currently, we have no valid formula to convert the redshift to real output as Velocity, age & distance.
You only have some sort of diagram.
Those diagrams are based on the BBT.
Therefore, what we see (or actually, what we think that we see) meets fully represents the BBT.
Therefore, the visible Universe must be called - the BBT Universe due to those diagrams.
We all know that Based on the BBT, the age of the "BBT Universe" can't be more than 13.8 BY.
Therefore, our scientists have normalized the entire visibe Universe to that time table.
Therefore - it is again the "BBT Universe".
So, the redshift of the galaxy is totally none relevant.
Even if it is z = 10^10, based on our scientists it must be located in that range of 13.4 BLY.
So, you offer a theory and you set the measurements according to that same theory.
In the same token, you could claim that the BBT took place 20 BY ago (or 100BY ago) and normalize all the distances/ages to that time scale..
Is it real? Is that how our science works?
Sorry - You can't do so.
This isn't ethical.
It is your obligation to offer a proved way to measure the distances/age of the far end galaxies without any connection with the BBT.
You need to develop a formula how to convert the redshift to distance/age/ velocity while the BBT is not there.
If you can't do so, than how can you prove the BBT?
The Visible Universe is a reflection of the BBT.
As the BBT tells us that it took place 13.8 By ago, than the maximal age of a galaxy should be less than that.
Therefore, from now on let's call the visible Universe as the "BBT Universe".

With regards to the size of the real Universe.
Halc rejects the idea of "no maximal distance" or infinite Universe.

Quote
In the other article they claim:
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/
"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary."

This is written by an unknown non-scientist. There are many errors in it, and unbacked claims.
The statement above says essentially: 'Maybe', which is a pretty weak assertion, and thus likely true.

You reject that article as it might contradict with the BBT.
However, you also claim that:

Each multiverse contains potentially infinite universes, but 'infinite number of multiverses' is pretty meaningless.

Now you agree that there are multiverse and each multiverse contains potentially infinite universes.
hence, if you set infinite universes why can't we assume that it can generate an infinite universe?

There is no hard evidence that the universe doesn't have an edge as close as 6 BLY (proper distance) away since no light reaching us now has ever been that far away.  That makes the minimum size of the universe under 12 BLY so long as we're at the center of it.
A perfect simulator of Earth (from the beginning to today) would in principle only need to simulate that finite radius.

What is the chance that we are located at the near the edge of the Universe?
If the radius of the Universe is 13.8 BLY
Than the chance to be in the outer range of 13.8 to 10 BLY is:
13.8^3 - 10^3 = 2628 - 1000 = 1628
Therefore the chance to be directly next to the edge (10BLY to 13.8 BLY) is:
1628/2628 *100 = 62%
That by itself proves that the Universe must be much bigger than what you claim!
The Proper/recession distance/velocity is all about the BBT.
In the redshift of a galaxy there is no stamp that claim - yes I'm a proper distance/velocity.
It is all about the BBT.
So again - You set a theory - BBT.
You fixed the BBT Universe to this theory and called it visible/observable Universe while it is purely based on normalized BBT information.
Then you have proved the BBT by this normalized BBT information in order to get that BBT Universe.

BBT makes no explicit claim about the size of the universe, so there's nothing to protect.

That statement is only applicable to the real Universe size. The BBT tells us clearly the size of the Visible/BBT Universe.
With regards to the real Universe size -
The BBT doesn't tell us about the real Universe size and therefore it is fully protected as we can't reject it without a clear statement.
Our scientists know that any estimation could be wrong as we could prove that it is incorrect and reject the whole BBT and therefore, they don't even try to offer a number.
With regards to the Visible/BBT Universe-
Based on the BBT the maximal size MUST be 13.4 BLY.
It is your obligation to prove it.
Not by the BBT normalized process, but by real proved measurements/formulas.

In any case, do you agree that the real universe should be bigger than the Visible/BBT Universe?
If so, you MUST tell us the size of that real Universe.
If it has an edge, than you MUST tell us about that edge (Full data integrated in the BBT)
You can't hide around the message that:
"BBT makes no explicit claim about the size of the universe, so there's nothing to protect"
It is your mission to give us clear information.
If you can't do so, than please clear the stage to other people/scientists that can do it better than you.
How can we consider that approach as a real science?
The size of the real Universe and real visible Universe MUST come before setting any sort of Theory.
You just can't use that that BBT Universe that you call Visible Universe to prove the BBT.
That issue by itself proves that the BBT is just a purely hypothetical idea.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28
How the BBT could start while the whole infinite Universe is already full with matter?

Nobody knows what caused the Big Bang, but there's no obvious reason why being inside of another, larger universe should be a problem for it.

As our scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang, how can we trust them to know if there was a big bang?
Again - if there was already a Universe or even infinite Universe, than why can't that universe behave as what we see today?
What is the added value of the Big bang to that infinite universe?
In any case, there is a clear reason why the Big bang couldn't be inside another larger/infinite universe.
Distortion - this is the answer.
Don't you agree that a bang in infinite universe would violate the requirement for Homogenous and isotropic.
Without it, there is no room for the Big bang.

Actually, if the Multiverses was real, how can we still assume that the Universe is Homogenous and isotropic?
We had to see its reflection in the CMB radiation.
As we get exactly the same amplitude and the same CMB signature from any direction, it proves that there is no room for other Universes in the infinite open space.
Only one infinite Universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28
So, why do you claim that 13.8 BY ago all the matter/galaxies of the Universe were located nearby while the early universe was infinitely-large Universe?

Whoever said that I did? Only the matter in the visible Universe need to have been nearby.

How do you know for sure that some of the galaxies that we see don't belong to that larger Universe?
Let me ask it differently, based on the BBT, as the real universe is larger than the observable one, how do we know that the Milky way and all the other galaxies that we see do not belong to that early Universe?
Why are you so sure that we are in the Universe that had been created by the BBT 13.8 BY ago?
Why can't we just be outside that "BBT Universe"?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28
Why our scientists don't care about the creation process of that early infinitely-large Universe?

(1) Nobody said that they don't, and (2) this infinitely-large Universe I speak of is purely hypothetical.

1. If they care about it, why they don't offer a theory for that larger/infinite Universe?
2. Purely hypothetical - Can you please tell me what size of the Universe wouldn't be considered as a purely hypothetical?
You claim that the Observable size is what we see, but you know for sure that this is just part of the real Universe.
So, you agree that they universe must be bigger than that tinny observable Universe. Therefore, I still claim that there is no meaning to explain the observable universe. First you need to estimate the real size and then offer a theory for the whole real universe size.
If you claim that you don't know the real size of the Universe, how can we trust that your theory is applicable to our real universe?
Why can't we assume that the BBT is a purely hypothetical idea to purely hypothetical universe size?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28
What is the added value of the BBT? Why do we need this theory for the early infinitely-large Universe that was already there 13.8 BY ago?

Because it explains the origin of our visible Universe.

How it could explain the Visible Universe while we don't know for sure the size of that Universe?
Our scientists claim that the farthest galaxy can't be more than about 13.4 BLY.
This is purely based on the BBT.
However, how can we know for sure that a galaxy with a redshift of 11 is located at that distance?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/06/2020 14:35:28
Why they don't offer any kind of creation theory for that early infinitely-large Universe?

There's no need for a theory to explain something that isn't even known to be true.

So, why our scientists claim that the Universe has no maximal distance???
You try to hold the stick in both sides.
You offer a theory for a compact size (observable) while you know for sure that the real Universe should be bigger than that.
Therefore, it is more convenient to you to claim that you just don't know the size.
In this case, how can you explain something that you don't know?
It is your obligation to verify the size of our real Universe.
We want to know the size of the real universe.
How can you focus only on what we see (observable), while you know the observable universe is based on the BBT. So, if there is an error in the BBT there also must be an error in our understanding about the observable Universe.

I would recommend you to use the following simple diagram flow:

1. Find new technique to calculate the real distance to far away galaxies (which is not based on the BBT).
2. Estimate the real size of the entire Universe. Any estimation is good enough..
3. Offer a theory that meets your calculation & estimation for that size of that entire Universe. (A theory only for the Observable Universe is none relevant).
4. Verify if the theory works.
5. If it doesn't - start again.

Once you do it correctly - you should find the ultimate theory for our real Universe.

Quote
There might be infinite other Universes around our observable Universe.

That would put them elsewhere in this universe, which is sort of a level-1 multiverse, which yes, is the consensus view.

Sorry. I disagree.
It is our obligation to offer one theory that applicable to any relevant size of the entire real Universe.
One theory for the whole entire real Universe.

[Kryptid]

I'm not going to go over all of your points, because I already have gotten more involved than I wanted to, but...

As our scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang, how can we trust them to know if there was a big bang?

Do you realize just how idiotic this reasoning it? This is like saying, "as we don't know what the origin of life is, how can we trust anyone to know if life ever existed?"

Are you sure that the Visible Universe is what we think?

No one can be sure of that, but it's what the evidence suggests.

You offer a theory for a compact size (observable) while you know for sure that the real Universe should be bigger than that.

We don't know that it is bigger. The entire Universe could even be smaller than what we see (if it is a closed Universe that is so small that light has traveled around it more than once, it would look larger than it actually is, for example). But I don't expect you to understand that, since the idea behind curved spaces or hyperspheres appears to be something beyond you.

Therefore, it is more convenient to you to claim that you just don't know the size.

It isn't a claim, it is true. No one knows the size of the whole Universe. If they say that they do, then they are lying.

It is your obligation to verify the size of our real Universe.

Why is it my obligation to do that? All I do is go with what the current evidence says. If it turns out to be wrong one day, then so be it. Until then, I'll stick with the evidence.

Once you do it correctly - you should find the ultimate theory for our real Universe.

Which isn't yours.

[Bored chemist]

Do you agree that the only valid data is the redshift.

No

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Kryptid

I don't expect you to understand that, since the idea behind curved spaces or hyperspheres appears to be something beyond you.

Let me surprise you.
I do understand the mathematical curvature in Minkowski space time concept.
In this mathematical concept the Time is orthogonal to space.
However, do you consider that the time in our real Universe is octagonal to space?
Actually, we could add the matter as a 5th dimension to the space-time.
In this case, we could set a mathematical concept of Space-Time-matter.
We might get also a curvature in matter.
For example, theoretically, as our body is matter, we could travel in a curvature time and found our self among the dinosaurs or even in the big bang itself.
Those are nice ideas, but we all know that it is just imagination.
In  our real world/universe - the matter is not orthogonal to space-time as the time is not orthogonal to space.
So, as the space time is imagination mathematical concept, the idea of curvature is also pure mathematical imagination.
However, if you believe in real space-time, than please show how the time in our real Universe could be orthogonal to space.
In the same time try to explain why the matter couldn't be orthogonal to space as space-matter.

Visible Universe

Do you agree that our Visible Universe is a direct reflection of the BBT?
In other words, we see our visible Universe by the BBT filter.
Therefore - our universe is normalized by the key ideas of the BBT as follow:
1. Time/age - The maximal age of any galaxy in the Universe (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BY
2. Distance -  The maximal distance to any galaxy from us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BLY
3. Velocity -  The maximal velocity of any galaxy in the Universe relative to us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 3c (about).
So, do you agree that we should call the Visible Universe -  "THE BBT UNIVERSE"?
Therefore, the modern science has locked the visible Universe to the BBT.
Now it is very clear to me why my theory or any other theory would be rejected due to that BBT filter/lock.
Please let me know if you have an idea how to overcome that BBT filter/lock as it almost seems to me that even if God by himself will come down and tell us that the Visible Universe looks differently - we won't believe him.

[Bored chemist]

Actually, we could add the matter as a 5th dimension to the space-time.

Not really, no.

Do you agree that our Visible Universe is a direct reflection of the BBT?

No, it's the other way round.
It's obviously not the way round that you wrote it, because we had an observable universe before we had a BBT.

In other words, we see our visible Universe by the BBT filter.

No, for the same reason.
The view out of my window didn't suddenly change because someone (for a joke) invented thee BBT

Therefore -

You can't have a sub clause that depends on something that isn't true.

Distance -  The maximal distance to any galaxy from us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BLY

No
Why do you keep asking that?

So, do you agree that we should call the Visible Universe -

No, because it's not got anything to do with the BBT.
You seem to think the theory created the observations.
It's the other way round.

Now it is very clear to me why my theory or any other theory would be rejected due to that BBT filter/lock.

No, it's rejected on the grounds that it stared with a non sequitur which you still refuse to address.

Please let me know if you have an idea how to overcome that BBT filter/lock as it almost seems to me that even if God by himself will come down and tell us that the Visible Universe looks differently - we won't believe him.

It doesn't need divine intervention.
Any astronomer could do it.
All they have to do is provide evidence.

[Kryptid]

Let me surprise you.

I'm not surprised at all, given that you just said a bunch of nonsense again (like matter being a fifth dimension or time being "octagonal" to space).

I do understand the mathematical curvature in Minkowski space time concept.

You can't say that and then follow that statement up with this:

For example, theoretically, as our body is matter, we could travel in a curvature time and found our self among the dinosaurs or even in the big bang itself.

All that does is demonstrate that you don't understand it. You would do yourself a big favor if you actually tried to learn what modern physics actually says instead of inventing nonsense and pretending that it is modern physics. Then you wouldn't look so bad.

Now it is very clear to me why my theory or any other theory would be rejected due to that BBT filter/lock.

Yet it doesn't seem clear to you that your model would be rejected because it violates the laws of physics, whether or not the Big Bang theory was around or not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yet it doesn't seem clear to you that your model would be rejected because it violates the laws of physics, whether or not the Big Bang theory was around or not.

Do you consider the Hubble law as law of physics?
100 Years ago, Hubble couldn't monitor the real distance to far away galaxies. (even today we can't do it)
Therefore, He had offered his best estimation.
However, how do we know for sure that his estimation is fully correct?
Hubble law is actually using the redshift of a galaxy in order to claim for its distance from us.
However, Doppler has told us that redshift is ONLY about velocity.
So, how can we take a variant that only valid for velocity and convert it to distance?
Can we confirm that a galaxy with a redshift 11 is really located at a distance of 13.4 BLY?
Can we offer even one reference point in the whole observable Universe (it can be a galaxy or a star) with high redshift  which its distance to us had been validate by 100%?
If we can't do it, than there is high chance that there is an error in Hubble law.
Do you agree that if there is an error in Hubble law than there must be an error in the BBT?
Do you confirm that all the following ideas are directly based on Hubble law or BBT law:
1. Time/age – The universe age is 13.8BY. Therefore, the maximal age of any galaxy in the Universe (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BY
2. Distance -  The maximal distance to any galaxy from us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 13.4BLY
3. Velocity -  The maximal velocity of any galaxy in the Universe relative to us (even if its redshift is 10^10...0) must be less than 3c (about).[/quote].

I hope that we all agree by now that the Universe size should be much bigger than a limited radius of just 46BLY.
Therefore, it is quite clear to our scientists that they can't fit that universe size in only 13.8 BY.
So, if the age of the Universe is older than those BBT ideas are incorrect?
In any case, in order to bypass that obstacle, our scientists have decided that their mission is only to focus on the observable Universe.
That by itself is a severe error.
The mission is to offer a theory for the entire Universe and not just for one part of the Universe that we call as "the Observable Universe".
On the other hand, how do we know for sure the size of the Observable Universe?  If we can't monitor for sure the distance to a far away galaxy, how do we know the real distance to that galaxy or the farthest away galaxy?
If our scientists know that the entire Universe is bigger, than they have to offer a theory for the whole entire Universe. As they consider that the entire universe is based on infinite no. of multiverse, than they have to clear the BBT and set a full theory for that infinite Multiverse.

With regards to theory D
So far you couldn't offer even one real law of science that theory D violet.
With regards to relativity -
I hope that we all have seen the diagrams from Halc that confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. So, please don't use relativity law any more.