[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

"Six feet from the end of my nose " defines a region, but doesn't need a wall.

The skin of the nose is the wall.
So, assuming that the skin gives 100% isolation/protection from outside, the temp of a molecular in the nose below that skin should be identical to any other molecular in the body.
Hence, theoretically, if the skin could set a perfect isolation, we could claim that our body is located inside a black box.
In the same token, if "Nothing; not even space" is located outside the expanding space, than any star at that is located exactly at the edge of the Universe would not lose any temp or energy to the aria outside the expanding universe. So it won't feel that it is located at the edge. That actually represents the ultimate understanding for black box.
So, even that we claim that there are no walls around the expanding universe, we actually describing an expanding universe in expanding black box. However, as any black box must have walls around it, than it proves that there is a fatal error in the BBT.
So, we have to take a decision
1. If a star at the edge of the Universe doesn't feel that it is located at the edge, then there must be an edge/walls/barrier to the universe. Those "walls" keep the difference between the expanding space inside the universe to the "nothing" outside the universe
2. However, if the star feels that there is an edge by losing its temp/energy to the aria outside the current space of the Universe, than how can we claim that there is Nothing; not even space outside?

Because the wavelength increases as the space stretches.
Longer wavelengths correspond to cooler radiation.

This is absolutely none realistic.
If someone will stretch its nose, does it mean that the molecular inside its nose should have Longer wavelengths?
Sorry, if the nose was very flexible and we could stretch it to one KM or even 13BLY without breaking its skin (while it gives 100% isolation), there will be no Longer wavelengths or cooler radiation inside that nose.

Multiverse-
Our scientists have just found some sort of observation/evidence that our universe is just one single sphere in the open space to the infinity.
So, how can we claim that "Nothing; not even space" there is outside of our Universe shpere while now we have found that there are many other universes/multiverse outside our current Universe?
Hence, the idea of the Multiverse by itself should kill immediately the BBT.

Sorry, our scientists can't assume something and contradict it by other assumption/verification.
How any one which consider itself as a scientist can't see that there are severe contradictions in that none realistic theory which is called BBT?

[Bored chemist]

The skin of the nose is the wall.

Yes,but the boundary we are talking about is 6 feet away from it, so it isn't relevant.

So, assuming that the skin gives 100% isolation/protection from outside

It doesn't, but nobody would expect it to.

Hence, theoretically, if the skin could set a perfect isolation, we could claim that our body is located inside a black box.

No.
Because the skin is part of the body.
But it's still not got anything to do with the actual question.

However, as any black box must have walls around it, than it proves that there is a fatal error in the BBT.

No.
That's still wrong.
Look at a candle flame, or a tungsten lamp.

This is absolutely none realistic.

It is observably true. Gravity stretches space and affects the wavelength of EM radiation.
This is an experimentally measurable effect.
If you actually understood science, you would know that.

Sorry, our scientists can't assume something and contradict it by other assumption/verification.

You are the one making silly assumptions.
The measurements show that you are wrong.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Nothing; not even space.

I wonder how a person that consider himself as a scientist can claim that Nothing; not even space exists outside our Universe, while in the same token he confirms that there are other Universes outside our universe.
So, how other universes could exist in the outside aria where there is nothing, not even space?
It's not an issue of science; it is a simple issue of logic.

[Bored chemist]

I wonder how a person that consider himself as a scientist can claim that Nothing; not even space exists outside our Universe,

Oddly I wondered the opposite.
Since the universe is universal, it contains everything, including the whole of space..
And therefore there must be nothing outside it.

It is, as you say a simple matter of logic.

Universe, while in the same token he confirms that there are other Universes outside our universe.

Not sure I ever did that.

However, enough about that, why not just answer this simple question (since you plainly can't cope with the difficult ones).

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

Well, we have already deeply discussed this issue.
Unfortunately, you clearly don't remember that.
So, let me tell you the following.
There is no problem with the night sky paradox as relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.
The missing components in the starting formula of relativity leads to those errors.
Therefore, in very small scale - THERE IS NO singularity in our universe.
Not for any BH and not even for the Big Bang itself.
In the same token, in very large scale - THRE IS NO curvature in our Universe.
Therefore, if we go all the way to the left we will stay at the left up to the infinity.
The idea that as we go to the left we might come from the right due to the curvature in our universe is totally incorrect.
Hence, the relativity velocity formula fails to work when it comes to a very far away space-time or location.
When galaxy at the very far end location is moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location, at some point (location & velocity) its light wouldn't get to us any more.
So, we get the light only from those galaxies that are located up to a distance D (assuming that at any direction there is the same correlation between velocity to distance...).
Hence, our real Universe is infinite while the location of light that we can still get is finite (D).
Therefore, if we could go to a galaxy that is located at 100BLY, One Trillion LY or even one Million of trillion LY away from us (at any direction) we would see there a similar space view as we see in our current location.
The CMB there would be identical and it would also carry the same Black body radiation.
However, at those far end locations we won't be able to get any light from the Milky Way galaxy.

Conclusion:
When we look at any direction, we all must agree that there are infinite galaxies up to the infinity in that single line direction. However, the light that we can get to our location from those galaxies is limited (D) based on distance/velocity of the galaxies. As we all know the further away the galaxy is located the faster away it is moving. Hence we can actually get the light only from limited no of galaxies (up to distance D) in that infinite long line.
Hence, although there are infinite galaxies in each line directions, we can get/observe the light only from a finite no of galaxies (up to D).
Therefore, there is no room for the night dark paradox.
Is it finally clear to you by now?
I hope that after jumping from point to point, you don't have an intention to do it again...

[Bored chemist]

relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.

There is no evidence for that.
On the contrary, when tested on every scale relativity works.
So you are making up false "reasons" why your idea might work.

Well, we have already deeply discussed this issue.

You ignore the question; you have never answered it..
Try answering it, In that model universe, what would the background radiation from the night sky be?
I will make it easy for you; Would it look like the CMBR that we see in this universe- essentially BBR at about 2.7K?

OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no  to answer this.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:08:10
relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.

There is no evidence for that.
On the contrary, when tested on every scale relativity works.

No
You have a fatal error
I have already explained it very clear during our discussion about singularity:

Please look at the following starting formula for general relativity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity
"spacetime is assumed to be four-dimensional, each index on a tensor can be one of four values. Hence, the total number of elements a tensor possesses equals 4R, where R is the count of the number of covariant {\displaystyle (b_{i})}(b_{i}) and contravariant {\displaystyle (a_{i})}(a_{i}) indices on the tensor, {\displaystyle r+s}{\displaystyle r+s} (a number called the rank of the tensor)."
Then it is stated:
"Some physical quantities are represented by tensors not all of whose components are independent. Important examples of such tensors include symmetric and antisymmetric tensors. Antisymmetric tensors are commonly used to represent rotations (for example, the vorticity tensor).

Although a generic rank R tensor in 4 dimensions has 4R components, constraints on the tensor such as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components. For example, a symmetric rank two tensor and possesses 10 independent components, whereas an antisymmetric (skew-symmetric) rank two tensor and has 6 independent components. For ranks greater than two, the symmetric or antisymmetric index pairs must be explicitly identified.

Antisymmetric tensors of rank 2 play important roles in relativity theory. The set of all such tensors - often called bivectors - forms a vector space of dimension 6, sometimes called bivector space."


So, first they use the "rank R tensor in 4 dimensions" so it  "has 4R components
Why in some vectors they claim for 6 or 10 components/dimension?
The question is can we use it at higher dimension? So did we give up on some components/dimension?
Then it is stated: "as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components"
Could it be that those symmetry or antisymmetry components are not fully identical up to the infinity?

So, my impression is that they have give up on some components that have very minor impact on the whole formula.
Therefore, it has almost no negative impact on large scale.
That leads to the excellent formula of general relativity.
However, as we use that formula at very small scale the impact on the missing components are very critical.
Therefore, the outcome in the mathematics is singularity.
I'm quite sure that if we will add all the missing components we won't get any singularity at a very small scale as there is no error in the mathematics.
Conclusion - the singularity that we get from general relativity is based on the missing  components. Therefore, this formula shouldn't be used in small scale.
Hence, there is no room for singularity in our real life.
We must use QM at that scale which fully contradicts the idea of singularity.

So, in very small scale the relativity breaks down due to those missing components in the formula.
At that scale we must use QM that totally contradicts the idea of singularity.
In the same token, the relativity breaks down also in a very large scale
Unfortunatly, our scientists do not develop a special formula for very long distance up to the infinity.
Therefore, by using the relativity formula, they get a severe error.
If we could add back to the relativity formula all the missing components we should find that there is no curvature in our universe and the inability for the very far away galaxy' light to get to our location while the galaxy is moving away much faster than the speed of light.
So, first we all must agree that there are missing components in the relativity formula.
Then, we must add all of them back and verify the errors at very small scale and very large scale.

However, it is very clear to me that you have no interest in real science.
It is also very clear that you try to protect the BBT under any sort of contradiction as you are driven by some sort of spiracle mission.
I have noticed that the title under your name is: "Forum GOD!"
So, could it be that you fight under the mission of god?
Do you feel that if someone goes against the BBT he actually goes against your religious?

I have tried to verify what might be the connection between BBT to God and found the following:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330534047_THE_THEORY_OF_BIG_BANG_AND_THE_EARLY-CHRISTIAN_TEACHING_ABOUT_THE_'EX_NIHILO'_CREATION_OF_THE_UNIVERSE
"The Big Bang Theory considers that the Universe, space and time have a beginning. Similar is the position of the Christian writers of the early Christian Church, who support the ex nihilo-ἐκ μὴὴ ὄντος (ek me ontos = from the "non-being") creation of the world through the divine "energy", with the two theories converging to the fact that space and time have a beginning"

Based on this article the Christian Church is the highest supportive for the Big Bang.
I have full respect for the Christian Church. However, I couldn't find any other religious that supports the BBT at that level.
So, Could it be that you are part of a religious which believes in the BBT?
Could it be that your mission is to extend the life of the BBT as long as possible and kick out any idea which contradicts it under any situation?

[Bored chemist]

In reality, every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct to the limits of the precision of the measurement.
No wiki article will change that.

If you could demonstrate that relativity was wrong, you would suddenly become the most famous physicist of the century.
But all you have demonstrated is that you don't understand physics.

Could it be that your mission is to extend the life of the BBT as long as possible and kick out any idea which contradicts it under any situation?

No, I'm just trying to stop people thinking that your idea (It never got close to being a theory) is wrong.
It's wrong in the first few lines at the start of the thread.
And you know it is; that's why you refuse to give a simple yes or no answer to a question.
You know that the answer which is correct will undermine your whole hypothesis.

It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it.
I'm just trying to stamp out nonsense like yours.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In reality, every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct to the limits of the precision of the measurement.

This is clearly incorrect.
Do we really see/observe the singularity at a very small scale?
Do we really see/observe the end/edge of the observable Universe or the entire Universe?
If not, how can you claim that "every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct".

If you could demonstrate that relativity was wrong, you would suddenly become the most famous physicist of the century.

I have offered several articles which fully confirm that QM contradicts the idea of singularity that is a direct outcome from relativity.
Do you confirm that there are missing components in the relativity formula?
How do we know what is the real impact of those missing components at the very small scale or very large scale?
Do you agree at last the due to QM there is no room for singularity?

It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it.

Wow
If you really don't care about the BBT and you only focus on real science

Then let's try to focus on real information.
Please let me know if you agree on the following by Yes or no:
1. Relativity - There are missing components in this formula
2. Dark matter - There is no evidence/observation for dark matter. Without dark energy we can't explain the orbital velocity in the spiral galaxy
3. Dark energy - There is no evidence/observation for dark energy. Without the dark energy we can't explain the requested negative gravity that is needed to boost the expansion at the very far end locations.
4. Negative mass - There is no evidence for negative mass. Without negative mass the idea of hawking radiation is just incorrect.
5. Magnetic field - Do you agree that without magnetic field there is no possibility to generate any sort of quark or particle.
Our scientists know that. Therefore, they claim for electromagnetism during the Quark_epoch in order to form quarks 10^−12 seconds after the Big Bang.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_epoch
In physical cosmology the Quark epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when the fundamental interactions of gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong interaction and the weak interaction had taken their present forms, but the temperature of the universe was still too high to allow quarks to bind together to form hadrons.[1] The quark epoch began approximately 10−12 seconds after the Big Bang, when the preceding electroweak epoch ended as the electroweak interaction separated into the weak interaction and electromagnetism. During the quark epoch the universe was filled with a dense, hot quark–gluon plasma, containing quarks, leptons and their antiparticles. Collisions between particles were too energetic to allow quarks to combine into mesons or baryons. The quark epoch ended when the universe was about 10−6 seconds old, when the average energy of particle interactions had fallen below the binding energy of hadrons. The following period, when quarks became confined within hadrons, is known as the hadron epoch.

So, please explain the source of that electromagnetism that took place ONLY from 10^-12 Sec to 10^-6 sec after the BBT.
How electromagnetism could be created by a Bang?
How could it be that in that ultra short time all/most of the energy of the BB had been transformed to quarks?
If you really care about real science, it’s the time to set the BBT in the garbage of the science history and deliver me a reward for the discovery.

[Bored chemist]

Do we really see/observe the singularity at a very small scale?
Do we really see/observe the end/edge of the observable Universe or the entire Universe?
.

I didn't say we looked at singularities.
Is that straw man the best you can do?
Yes, we do see the furthest parts of the visible universe.

If not, how can you claim that "every single test of relativity on every scale shows that relativity is correct".

Please list the experiments that give a different answer.
Otherwise you have to accept that my contention- all the experiments say it's right- is true.

OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no  to answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

You have got an answer for this question.
In my answer I have stated that there is an error in the relativity formula due to missing components.
Those missing components are the base for the relativity formula error in infinity small scale and infinity large scale.
So, if you think that this is incorrect, then why you didn't answer my question:

Do you confirm that there are missing components in the relativity formula?

Yes or no please!
I have offered several arguments why the BBT is absolutely none realistic theory:

1. Relativity - There are missing components in this formula
2. Dark matter - There is no evidence/observation for dark matter. Without dark energy we can't explain the orbital velocity in the spiral galaxy
3. Dark energy - There is no evidence/observation for dark energy. Without the dark energy we can't explain the requested negative gravity that is needed to boost the expansion at the very far end locations.
4. Negative mass - There is no evidence for negative mass. Without negative mass the idea of hawking radiation is just incorrect.
5. Magnetic field - Do you agree that without magnetic field there is no possibility to generate any sort of quark or particle.

In the following article it is stated:
https://earthsky.org/space/definition-what-is-dark-energy
"Dark energy is one of the great unsolved mysteries of cosmology. It is now thought to make up 68% of everything in the universe, with normal, so-called “baryonic” matter – every bit of matter we can actually see – comprising a mere 5%, with the rest consisting of dark matter, another huge cosmic mystery."
"The physics of dark energy are highly speculative. One idea which has gained ground in recent years is that dark energy resembles a force known as “quintessence,” which is a relative of the Higgs Field. But as yet there is no observational evidence to support or discount this"
I claim that there is no mystery in dark energy or dark matter as they both do not exist in our real Universe.
Without those imaginations/mysteries the BBT is totally none relevant theory.

It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it.
I'm just trying to stamp out nonsense like yours.

If you really care to stamp nonsense and you don't care about the BBT (as you claim), then you must reject those kind of none realistic imaginations/mysteries as Dark matter and dark energy.
As  "Dark energy, one of the great unsolved mysteries of cosmology" than at least, we all must agree that as long as there is no clear indication for those imaginations/unsolved mysteries of cosmology, the BBT should be considered as an IDEA and not as a Theory.

However, it is very clear to me that you have no interest in real science.
As you claim that "It's not that I'm defending the BBT- I don't really care about it", Then - please show us how could it be that you don't care about the BBT, while the mission of your life is defending the BBT.

[Bored chemist]

You have got an answer for this question.
In my answer I have stated that there is an error in the relativity formula due to missing components.
Those missing components are the base for the relativity formula error in infinity small scale and infinity large scale.
So, if you think that this is incorrect, then why you didn't answer my question:

The model universe about which I asked you did not contain any infinities.
So that can't be the reason you didn't answer.
So... yet again...

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:32:45
OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no  to answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

[Bored chemist]

the mission of your life is defending the BBT.

It's not.
That's just silly.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's not.
That's just silly.

Actually, I have better idea for our confused scientists with regards to those unsolved mysteries of cosmology that are called dark matter and dark energy
Instead of using the word "dark" let's use "Abra Cadabra", "invisible power" or "Divine power".
This might be more realistic idea for the BBT.

[Bored chemist]

I have a better idea.
Answer this

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:39:16

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:32:45
OK, so now all you need to do is, for the tenth time of asking, give a simple yes or no  to answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 22:54:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/10/2020 08:41:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:06:49
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:07:56
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:19:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:49:31

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:22:13
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:27:33
So, rather than posting nonsense, just answer the question.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:32
What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

Well, we have already deeply discussed this issue.
Unfortunately, you clearly don't remember that.
So, let me tell you the following.
There is no problem with the night sky paradox as relativity fails to work when it comes to very small scale or very large scale.
The missing components in the starting formula of relativity leads to those errors.
Therefore, in very small scale - THERE IS NO singularity in our universe.
Not for any BH and not even for the Big Bang itself.
In the same token, in very large scale - THRE IS NO curvature in our Universe.
Therefore, if we go all the way to the left we will stay at the left up to the infinity.
The idea that as we go to the left we might come from the right due to the curvature in our universe is totally incorrect.
Hence, the relativity velocity formula fails to work when it comes to a very far away space-time or location.
When galaxy at the very far end location is moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location, at some point (location & velocity) its light wouldn't get to us any more.
So, we get the light only from those galaxies that are located up to a distance D (assuming that at any direction there is the same correlation between velocity to distance...).
Hence, our real Universe is infinite while the location of light that we can still get is finite (D).
Therefore, if we could go to a galaxy that is located at 100BLY, One Trillion LY or even one Million of trillion LY away from us (at any direction) we would see there a similar space view as we see in our current location.
The CMB there would be identical and it would also carry the same Black body radiation.
However, at those far end locations we won't be able to get any light from the Milky Way galaxy.

Conclusion:
When we look at any direction, we all must agree that there are infinite galaxies up to the infinity in that single line direction. However, the light that we can get to our location from those galaxies is limited (D) based on distance/velocity of the galaxies. As we all know the further away the galaxy is located the faster away it is moving. Hence we can actually get the light only from limited no of galaxies (up to distance D) in that infinite long line.
Hence, although there are infinite galaxies in each line directions, we can get/observe the light only from a finite no of galaxies (up to D).
Therefore, there is no room for the night sky paradox.
Is it finally clear to you by now?
I hope that after jumping from point to point, you don't have an intention to do it again...

What would you see in the night sky of that  model universe?

As you have got an answer, why do you keep asking the same question?

[Bored chemist]

As you have got an answer, why do you keep asking the same question?

You have said a lot of things, but I don't believe you actually answered the question wich I asked.
The question was essentially.
Would the CMBR in that model universe look like the CMBR in our universe?

Please point out where you answered the question meaningfully by either saying "yes" or saying "no".

[Bored chemist]

You may find reality to be informative.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/black-hole-star-space-tidal-disruption-event-telescope-b988845.html?fbclid=IwAR2tFSuTOcfo2tylgONNfqjhOJjZqIzRhoAKOoZmPzNwhdfJ8zYp4Sg0huo

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Would the CMBR in that model universe look like the CMBR in our universe?
Please point out where you answered the question meaningfully by either saying "yes" or saying "no".

The CMB radiation perfectly fits/explained by theory D.
Please let me know if you see any contradiction

You may find reality to be informative.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/black-hole-star-space-tidal-disruption-event-telescope-b988845.html?fbclid=IwAR2tFSuTOcfo2tylgONNfqjhOJjZqIzRhoAKOoZmPzNwhdfJ8zYp4Sg0huo

This is the biggest lie of our scientists
In the article it is stated:
"Astronomers were able to see this one, named AT2019qiz, in better detail than ever before because it was detected soon after the star was torn to shreds."
What is the meaning of: "it was detected soon after the star was torn to shreds"?."
Did they really see a star when it was a real star, or did they just find shreds as they have looked at AT2019qiz?
As they clearly claim that they only found shreds just after the star was torn apart, how do they know that there was any star there and how do they know that the shreds are due to in falling star?
Sorry, based on their explanation it is very clear that they ONLY found Shreds as they look at that AT2019qiz.
However, they are very sure that those shreds are due to "star that was torn to shreds"
So, as they didn't see any star how do they dare to lie and claim that: "Scientists have watched a rare blast of light from a star as it was eaten by a black hole."
I hope that it is just a mistake of those scientists that are eager to find in falling star while so far they couldn't find it in the whole Universe.
So, please let them know that they will never ever find any falling star in its way to the accretion disc of a BH or a SMBH.

This article shows how our scientists are ready to lie in order to prove their unrealistic theories.
This isn't science. It isn't even a science fiction. It is just a pure lie and misleading information.
If you really care about science, it's time for you to change the BBT disc.