0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
The problem is that you are assuming that there was such a thing as "pre Big Bang space". If time started at the Big Bang, then there wasn't.
Do you agree that there is a chance that the time had started before the Big bang?
Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?
What is the chance that the entire Universe is infinite or Multiverse?
I do recall that you have stated that if the Universe is infinite than it was already infinite before the bang.
As the entire Universe is clearly bigger than the Observable Universe, then don't you agree that this extra space was already there before the bang?
the BBT can only cover the size of the observable Universe
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:30:50Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?Wrong. At least some inflation models post that inflation is still happening in other regions of the Universe outside of the observable universe. If that's the case, then the total size of the Universe could be many, many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:30:50Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?
1. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?
2. Do you confirm that based on this model of the BBT, the maximal size of the Observable universe should be 92BY?
3. Do you also confirm that the size of the entire universe must be bigger than the observable Universe?
Since you think gravity repels things, why haven't you floated off into space yet?
Before we start any sort of explanation, would you kindly answer the following?
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.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:10:141. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?It's the other way around. The Big Bang model has to conform to what we observe about the Universe.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:10:141. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?
So, do you mean that each time that we observe a contradiction in the BBT theory
So, do you mean that each time that we observe a contradiction in the BBT theory, our scientists add some adaptation to the theory?
I do recall that few years ago our scientists have estimated that the maximal size of the Universe is about 13 Bly.
Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:59:32Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?Yes. There are two things in particular I can think of. The discovery of black dwarfs and blue dwarfs would be evidence against the Big Bang theory. The Universe, as we currently understand it, is not old enough for either black dwarfs or blue dwarfs to yet exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_dwarf_(red-dwarf_stage)
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:59:32Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?
But "Theory D" is not that better theory, in part because it claims that gravity pushes things apart (which is obviously wrong because I'm sitting right here comfortably on the Earth's surface).
If the Big Bang theory is wrong, discarding it will probably be neither a quick nor a simple process.
A black dwarf is a theoretical stellar remnant...So, it is some sort of theoretical idea.
I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.
There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.
I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.
The idea that objects can fall in and increase their circular orbital velocity due to momentum or any other idea is a pure fiction.
The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them away
I'm ready to offer a full list of real observations that can kill theory D.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.Well, that's trivially falsified.We put probes into circular orbits around other bodies which we study such as the Moon and Mars.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.
A probe without engine is an object.
A probe without engine is an object.It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:02:35A probe without engine is an object.It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.All the engine does is push things.That same push could be delivered by being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.So it's possible to get arbitrarily close to circular orbit, purely by chance.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:02:35A probe without engine is an object.It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them awayGravity has never been observed to push.If it did then the Solar system wouldn't exist.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them away
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.So can I: gravity doesn't push things.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.
Stop wasting time trying to distract from the real problems with your idea.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.A statement in need of substantiation.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.
Please, would you kindly also offer real list of verifications that should kill the BBT.
As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.
(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It does
2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.
(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.
(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always there
(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.
(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.
(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.
Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.
Well, I'm not sure where is the border between long to short.With regards Earth - It seems to me that up to the upper most satellite radius, we can consider it as a "short rang". Therefore, any satellite there will eventual fall in and collide with the earth.
Quote from: Bored chemistQuote from: Dave LevI claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.Well, that's trivially falsified....It is quite clear that you would never be able to do it (You can ask NASA about it)..However, if you can do it, you get 1000$ - promise.
Quote from: Dave LevI claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.Well, that's trivially falsified.
I'm ready to pay you 1000$ if you can do the following:Let's assume that we wish to set that prove at a circular velocity around the Earth.The radius of the circular velocity is R.Now, let's assume that the probe is located at 100R from the earth.I give you the option to have full control on its engine from 100R till 10R
However, once it is below that 10R radius, you have no access to its engine.Now try to bring the probe so it will get into circular orbital velocity at R.
Quote from: Bored chemistThat same push could be delivered by being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.That is clearly incorrect.Even if one biilion objects that are "randomly wandering bit of space junk" are falling in the direction of the Earth, none of them will set a circular orbit around the Earth.
That same push could be delivered by being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.
But there can be a bit of space junk already in a circular orbit about Earth. There are plenty, and they have to track all of them to avoid collisions. You drop a screwdriver while working on a sattelite? It becomes a bit of space junk in a circular orbit, pretty much forever.The most trivial case I can think of: You have a billiard ball of mass m already in a 1R orbit. You take your 'probe' which is another identical ball and put it in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 10R to 1R. If it hits the orbiting one from the rear exactly at 1R, the 'probe' will now assume a circular orbit, and the other ball is boosted to the now eccentric orbit.This works just as well for a ball falling from space right into Earth. It only has to cross paths once, and just the right hit will take away exactly the correct momentum and drop the 'probe' into a circular orbit. The hit must occur at 1R, but otherwise the angle of the hit seems more important than the velocity or mass of the thing hit.For our object in the eccentric orbit, v = √(GM(2/r - 1/a)) where r is 1 and a is 5.5So v at r=1 would be √(GM*1.818) which needs to be reduced to v = √(GM) so all it needs to do is hit (with an elastic frictionless collision) an identical billiard ball with tangential velocity of √(GM), with random values for the other two velocity components, and the probe will assume a perfectly circular orbit. Adding friction just changes the math a bit. The thing it hits might be a bit of clay which doesn't bounce off at all, but sticks.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:48:26Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.Yes... a force that has only ever been observed to be attractive will push things away... That makes perfect sense!
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:48:26Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.
Do we see any star that is falling into the galactic disc from outside?