[Bored chemist]

However, unfortunately you can't offer this information as you clearly don't know.

That's absurd.
I'm inventing this toy universe I "know" everything about it.
The shape is the first thing to clear up.
Obviously the expansion makes it spherical.
That's just you not thinking things through or being lazy.

Unlike the "If I will turn right do I get to LA" question (to which the answer is "Yes" by the way), the size of the universe doesn't matter much- you could have picked a value but, let's go with "the size of the real observable universe".
The advantage to that is that we don't need to argue so much about definitions.

If there are any other things you don't feel  competent to make up for yourself, feel free to ask.

[Bored chemist]

Do you mean that I should learn science from someone who doesn't know even the size of its toy Universe?

The interesting thing about science; it doesn't matter whom you learn it from. If it's science then it's science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

the size of the universe doesn't matter much- you could have picked a value but, let's go with "the size of the real observable universe".

The size of the universe is very critical.
So, as it is your toy universe, than I agree - let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:

The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3

Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.

So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic. This also shows that the size of the universe is very critical.

Hence, when you have stated that:

the size of the universe doesn't matter much

Then it proves that you even don't know why it is mater!!!

The interesting thing about science; it doesn't matter whom you learn it from. If it's science then it's science.

The interesting thing about science is that those scientists which raise the flag of science have no clue about the real size of our Universe.
As you and all the science community don't know even the basic information about the current size of our Universe, then how do you dare to claim that you know for sure what was its size 14 BY ago and how it really works?
If you really care about real science then go and find the real information about our current universe before you try to let us know how it had been created.

However, as you don't care about its current size, you clearly don't care about real science.
You only care about the BBT and I still don't understand why.

[Bored chemist]

That is an interesting analysis .
But it is addressing the wrong question. (It's also wrong, but that's a different issue)

I didn't ask anything about how close to the edge you were.
I asked what the background would look like if you were deep in the middle of it (because if you weren't there wouldn't be "a" background).


So, yet again...

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:45:22
No; you have not answered it.
It's perfectly simple. you just need a yes or a no (rather than a screed of mistakes, which is what you usually post).

Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/10/2020 20:03:44
Either answer mine or admit that you can't because it makes you look a fool.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 16:23:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/10/2020 11:29:04
.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:34:47

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:29:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:41:47
So, after that pointless interruption, how about answering this (which isn't to do with the BBT, not matter how often you pretend that it is)?


Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:16:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:16:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Bored chemist]

So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.

Do you understand why I'm calling it a "toy"?

What you have "proved" is something everyone but you already knew. You proved that a toy is not real.
Were you expecting a Nobel prize for that?

However, as you don't care about its current size, you clearly don't care about real science.

I know enough about the science to know what the effect of the size is.
And I know that it does not greatly affect the outcome; it doesn't change the background radiation much-  it only affects one parameter and that's easy to allow for.

[Bored chemist]

However, as you don't care about its current size, you clearly don't care about real science.

I don't care much about the size of a toy.
Well, yes.
But that clearly has nothing to do with my views on science, does it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:32:26
So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.

Do you understand why I'm calling it a "toy"?
What you have "proved" is something everyone but you already knew. You proved that a toy is not real.

I have proved that a toy universe in the size of the observable Universe is not real.
Therefore the assumption that our universe has a size as the observable Universe (of 92BLY) is clearly not real.
I do recall that just few years ago, our scientists were positively sure that this is the size of our current universe.
Now they clearly understand that it should be bigger.
However, they do not dare to say what is the updated size.
There is excellent reason for that.
They would have a severe problem to fit the BBT to any size of Universe.
If they would use high radius then we might ask how a universe with so big sphere could be evolved in only 13 BLY.
If they would use medium radius (but is should be above that 46 BLY) then they might find out that even this one is still too small for our real universe
Therefore, they don't give any number as they clearly know that any number might kill the BBT.
As they wish to protect that imagination which is called BBT, they have decided to skip that issue.
Therefore, the BBT is actually a theory for a Universe without real size.
Now we/our scientists try to find a Universe which might fit itself to this theory.

Were you expecting a Nobel prize for that?

Yes, I'm waiting for the Noble prize.
However, the chance for that is less than zero.
Not because my discovery/theory is incorrect, but as those scientists that offer the Nobel Prize would give it ONLY to scientists that protect the BBT.
Sorry to let you down, you have no chance to convince them to give the Nobel prize to someone that proves that the BBT is "not real".

I know enough about the science to know what the effect of the size is.
And I know that it does not greatly affect the outcome; it doesn't change the background radiation much-  it only affects one parameter and that's easy to allow for.

How could you claim such unrealistic statement?
Anyone who claims that the size (any size -even if it is airplane or Universe) "does not greatly affect the outcome" can't be considered as designer or scientist.
The Size is the MOST important issue in any design/theory or idea and in any aspect of our life.
When I need to design complicated electronic systems the first question is - what is the requested size.
Do we need to fit it in a room size, or in a pocket?
What would be the outcome if the designer would be requested to develop an engine to an airplane without knowing its size.
Is there any way that an engine for a Toy airplane would fit to the B747 jet?

it doesn't change the background radiation much-  it only affects one parameter and that's easy to allow for.

Any Universe size would have key impact on the Background radiation.
You don't know that. However, our scientists clearly know that.
Therefore they do not claim that the current universe which had been evolved from the BBT have that CMBR due to its current size/parameter but due to some activity that took place about 13 BY ago.
So, they estimate that without that "Ring of bell" that comes from the early specific Era as an echo, we won't get that CMBR that we observe today.
However they also know that this CMBR shouldn't be ejected out from the edge of the expanding Universe or be reflected back from that edge.
In this case, they clearly know that our Universe won't be able to maintain the requested CMBR (or ring of bell from) from that specific early time.
Therefore, you have stated that the Universe expands exactly at the speed of light.
However, we clearly know that at the far end of the Universe that we see, (up to about 13/14 BLY) the galaxies are moving away at accelerated velocities.
Therefore, as we move further away from our location, the galaxies should move faster and faster.
Without knowing the current size of the Universe, how could we know what is the velocity at the edge of the Universe?
How do we know that the edge of the Universe is moving exactly at the speed of light while we don't care about the size of the Universe?

I don't care much about the size of a toy.
Well, yes.
But that clearly has nothing to do with my views on science, does it?

You don't care about the size of our real universe as at any selected size we would have to kill the BBT.
Therefore, you have specifically used the example of the "toy" Universe.
So, you have no problem to kill the observable Toy Universe.
As long as you keep the BBT alive then it is perfectly ok for you and for all those scientists which call the BBT - science.

Starting from this moment we need to set the following distinguish between real science to your "views on science".
When it comes to BBT - please try to call it BBT understanding/idea/story/wish list or just imagination.
Please keep the word "science" only to real science law.

So, when you ask me to learn BBT "science", please ask to learn the BBT story.

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

You have clearly got the answer for that:

Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.

Is it clear to you by now, or do you wish to ask again and again the same question...

[Bored chemist]

I have proved that a toy universe in the size of the observable Universe is not real.

No, you have not.
Firstly because you have proved nothing.
Secondly because... it's a toy... there was never any question of it being real, was there?

Anyone who claims that the size (any size -even if it is airplane or Universe) "does not greatly affect the outcome" can't be considered as designer or scientist.How could you claim such unrealistic statement?

Because I can look at the data from yesterday

The universe has expanded since yesterday, but it still looks pretty much the same.
So I know that a change of size only affects it slightly. Lots of things may change but, they don't matter because I'm only asking you to look at one aspect of this toy- the background radiation.
And the size of the universe affects that in a very simple way.

What it will affect is the temperature of the CMBR. It will still correspond to BBR, but for a different temperature.
But, as I said, that's just one parameter, and we can allow for it.

Do you accept that?

You don't care about the size of our real universe as at any selected size we would have to kill the BBT.

That's obviously wrong.
The BBT is not "killed" by the observation of the size of the universe.
On the contrary, it's largely because we know the size, that we know when there was a bang,
It's interesting that you say this
"Starting from this moment we need to set the following distinguish between real science to your "views on science"."
So, for example, things that say the conservation laws are being broken in this universe at the moment are wrong and should be discarded.
We need to distinguish "theory D" from real science ,because "Theory D" requires (among other things) a break in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago.
It also requires that we ignore Olber's paradox- which showed that "theory D" was wrong even longer ago.

So, when you ask me to learn BBT "science", please ask to learn the BBT story.

This "BBT" science is a figment of your imagination.

There is nothing in the BBT which is inconsistent with the lobserved laws of nature.
(This plainly distinguishes it from "Theory D" which requires that we ignore conservation laws.)

You have clearly got the answer for that:

OK, to be fair, you did sort of answer the question.
I missed it because you buried it in some irrelevant stuff.
You finally, after several weeks, answered the question.
In that toy universe (as long as you were not too near the "edge") you would see a background radiation that looks like the one we see in the night sky.


But, according to you, that's impossible.

That's the foundation of "Theory D"

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.

The CMBR would look exactly the same in my toy universe that is finite in age and finite in size.

So, I presume you will now accept that your starting point for "Theory D" is wrong,
and that it's wrong anyway because it requires a breach of the laws of physics and- as you say.

Starting from this moment we need to set the following distinguish between real science to your "views on science".

The BBT is science and "Theory D" is based on something that you now accept is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Because I can look at the data from yesterday

If you can look at the data from yesterday, why you can't look at the data from today?
Please - What is the current size of our Universe???

The universe has expanded since yesterday, but it still looks pretty much the same.

How could it be that the expanding universe would look the same at any given moment?
Actually, due to the expansion, at some point of time we wouldn't see any other galaxy in the whole visible Universe.
So, do you mean that even if we don't see any galaxy, the universe still looks the same?

That's obviously wrong.
The BBT is not "killed" by the observation of the size of the universe.
On the contrary, it's largely because we know the size, that we know when there was a bang,

How could it be that you know for sure when there was a bang and what was the size of the Universe at that bang, while you have no clue about its current size?
Do you still call it science?

Sorry - can you please answer what is the current size of the Universe?
Yes Or No?
If yes - please set the number!
However, do you agree that if we would find (today or in the future) that this number is incorrect, then the whole BBT would be set in the garbage?

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - can you please answer what is the current size of the Universe?
Yes Or No?
If yes - please set the number!

about 93 billion light-years
You do know that you could have googled that, don't you?

Now, let's see you address the fact that your recent post contradicts your first post- the one in which you set the foundations of "theory D"

However, do you agree that if we would find (today or in the future) that this number is incorrect, then the whole BBT would be set in the garbage?

Obviously, no.
The size of the universe is changing so the size will be different tomorrow.

How could it be that the expanding universe would look the same at any given moment?

Because I was focussing on the BBR. Sure, the galaxies and stuff change, stars come and go etc.
But the thing that we were actually talking about (and it was you who raised it- in the first lines of this thread) is teh CMBR and that doesn't change much; it just gets cooler as the universe gets older.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:23:47
You have clearly got the answer for that:

OK, to be fair, you did sort of answer the question.
I missed it because you buried it in some irrelevant stuff.
You finally, after several weeks, answered the question.

Thanks
Do appreciate you honest approach.

about 93 billion light-years
You do know that you could have googled that, don't you?

I have already proved by very simple Math that this size is not realistic.
You even agree with me.
So, if this is your No, then please set the BBT in the garbage.

Now, let's see you address the fact that your recent post contradicts your first post- the one in which you set the foundations of "theory D"

So, I presume you will now accept that your starting point for "Theory D" is wrong,
and that it's wrong anyway because it requires a breach of the laws of physics and- as you say.

"Theory D" requires (among other things) a break in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago.
It also requires that we ignore Olber's paradox- which showed that "theory D" was wrong even longer ago.

So, theory D starts with the same concept as the BBT.
If the BBT can set an energy and convert it to matter, why theory D can't use the same idea?
Do you have some royalty on the BBT ideas?
However, Theory D only needs one BH due to that bang. No more that that.
So, would you kindly explain why theory D "breaks in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago" while BBT doesn't break it?

Olber's paradox- I have already explained that this paradox is unrealistic due to the orbital velocity of the far end galaxies.
We clearly see that as the galaxy is located further away it is moving much faster away.
Therefore, at some distance, those far way galaxies must move away faster than the seed of light.
At that moment, the Olber's paradox die.

As they clearly move away faster than the speed of light then
 

So, I presume you will now accept that your starting point for "Theory D" is wrong,
and that it's wrong anyway because it requires a breach of the laws of physics and- as you say.

Theory D starts with clear estimation of size and edge.
You can agree with it or disagree.
But at least we all know about it.
If you can prove that it couldn't be infinite in its size and in its age, than this theory should be set in the garbage.
This is very clear to me.

[Bored chemist]

You even agree with me.

No I didn't.
If you think I did, please post a quote so I can explain either that you misunderstood or that I mistyped something.

If the BBT can set an energy and convert it to matter, why theory D can't use the same idea?

Matter/ energy interconversion isn't the problem.

So, would you kindly explain why theory D "breaks in the conservation laws proved by Emmy Noether about 100 years ago" while BBT doesn't break it?

The proof of energy/ mass conservation is derived from a symmetry of the universe- specifically that the universe is symmetrical in time.

At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.
But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.
This was already explained to you.

So, theory D starts with the same concept as the BBT.

According to you, "Theory D" starts with something which, according to you, is not true.
You need to fix that or ditch it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

please post a quote so I can explain either that you misunderstood or that I mistyped something.

My explanation was as follow:

The size of the universe is very critical.
So, as it is your toy universe, than I agree - let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:

The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3

Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.

So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic. This also shows that the size of the universe is very critical.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 22/10/2020 21:32:26
So, I have just proved that your toy universe with a size of 92 BLY is absolutely not realistic.

Do you understand why I'm calling it a "toy"?
What you have "proved" is something everyone but you already knew. You proved that a toy is not real.

Well, I have proved that a Universe in a size of 92 BLY is not real.
You can call it toy or observable. At that size the chance that we will be close to the edge is more than 70%.
Therefore, if our real universe was 92 or 93 BLY, the chance that we would be close to the edge is more than 70%.
Therefore, do you agree by now that the observabale Universe at 93 BLY is not real?

The proof of energy/ mass conservation is derived from a symmetry of the universe- specifically that the universe is symmetrical in time.

At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.

OK
So, BBT and theory D could start with a bang.
However, in the BBT all the matter/energy of the whole Universe must be created, while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.

But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.
This was already explained to you.

The creation of new matter by that tiny BH is not due to spontaneous generation.
It is due to gravity force and EM.
I have deeply explained this issue.

According to you, "Theory D" starts with something which, according to you, is not true.
You need to fix that or ditch it.

I accept the idea that something could be created out of Nothing, but that something can't be everything (as we even call it something..)
It could be a Tiny BH or a massive BH, but it surly can't be the whole matter/energy in the entire Universe.
This idea is absolutly not realistic.

[Bored chemist]

Are you being deliberately stupid?
Post a quote of something I said that led you to the inaccurate conclusion that
"

You even agree with me.

Because, what I actually said was

That is an interesting analysis .
But it is addressing the wrong question. (It's also wrong, but that's a different issue)

Why did you think I was agreeing with you when I said

It's also wrong,

?

Well, I have proved that a Universe in a size of 92 BLY is not real.

No.
You have not.
When you said you had I explained that you were wrong.

while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.

No, it is not.
As we have explained.
Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.
You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".

This was pointed out to you before.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?

It could be a Tiny BH or a massive BH, but it surly can't be the whole matter/energy in the entire Universe.
This idea is absolutely not realistic.

That is still a logical fallacy.
That was pointed out before


You keep repeating the same mistakes.

WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Are you being deliberately stupid?
Post a quote of something I said that led you to the inaccurate conclusion that

Are you being deliberately stupid?
Why is it so important if we call that Universe a Toy Universe, observable Universe or even BC Universe?
I have set the Math on the size of the Observable Universe - 92BLY.
So, please confirm the following:
If we were living in a Universe with a size of 92 BLY, the chance for us to be located close to the edge (up to 12 BLY) is more than 70%.

Let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:

The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3

Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.

Yes or No?
If yes, then it's time for you to set the BBT and the observable Universe size in the garbage!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:55:56
while in theory D only one tiny BH is good enough.

No, it is not.
As we have explained.
Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.
You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".

This was pointed out to you before.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?

Let me remind you:
Theory D doesn't break any physical law.

We all agree that the first object after the Bang could be created out of Nothing.
Based on the BBT, that object had set the whole matter in the entire Universe including all the stars, BHs, Rotatable BHs, SMBHs, Magnatars, Pulsars and galaxies.
Based on theory D we only need to have one single object as tiny BH or actually a Tiny rotatable BH to set the whole Universe.

So, let's assume that after the Big Bang we have got the first rotatable BH in the Universe.
I hope that you agree that this kind of BH has the ability to generate Electromagnetic field.
Now do you agree that due to its EM and gravity, it can generate new particle pairs (Both with positive mass and negative polarity)?

Once you agree with that, you should understand why new particles could be created by that rotatable BH without any science law violation.
Those particales would be used to form new starts and new rotatable BH which would set after long enough time our infinite Universe.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?

[Bored chemist]

Let me remind you:
Theory D doesn't break any physical law.

Yes it does.

We all agree that the first object after the Bang could be created out of Nothing.

No
After the bang was created by the bang.
The bang was created from nothing.
It may seem trivial but it is very important, that's why I'm explaining it to you for (at least) the third time.

Why is it so important if we call that Universe a Toy Universe, observable Universe or even BC Universe?

Because , even if it's entirely hypothetical, it shows that the first two lines of your thread are wrong.
It does not have to exist to do that.
It's a thought experiment.

Do you understand that?

Yes or No?

No.

But you are wrong anyway.
If you look at a distant black wall on a foggy day, you don't see the wall, you see the fog.

If you look at the edge of the universe, you don't see the edge, you see the CMBR.

Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.
That's not zero.
So you have not proved that it is wrong.

Now do you agree that due to its EM and gravity, it can generate new particle pairs (Both with positive mass and negative polarity)?

Until it evaporates, yes.
It will then have produced particles equal to its own mass and the process stops.

Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?

I remember us pointing out that it was wrong.
Had you forgotten that?

WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.
That's not zero.
So you have not proved that it is wrong.

How could you claim that the math is incorrect?
That answer by itself shows that your knowledge in basic Math is very poor.
Please see again the calculation:

Let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:

The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3

Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.

So, if you can't set that basic math, how could you dare to ask me the following?

WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?

It's better for you to learn some basic math and real science before you shows that your knowledge is so poor.

In any case, as my math is correct by 100% then it shows that the chance for the BBT to be correct is less than 30% while the chance for it to be incorrect is more than 70%.
So, if you set your trust in a theory which has 70% to be incorrect, then I would advise you to go and learn Math and real science (not that science fiction that we call BBT) and just then come back.

So, with or without your confirmation, it is very clear that our real Universe must be much bigger than this compact imagination of only 92 BLY.
Therefore, it's the correct time to set that BBT in the garbage once and for all.

[Bored chemist]

It's not that you have failed to calculate the volumes of bits of spheres properly.
The problem is that you don't understand that the volumes of bits of spheres you have calculated do not correspond to the BBT model.
It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.

You are presenting that classical physics applies, and it does not.


However, as I said; even if you were right, you would still be wrong.

If you look at a distant black wall on a foggy day, you don't see the wall, you see the fog.

If you look at the edge of the universe, you don't see the edge, you see the CMBR.

And, even if that wasn't enough to kill your idea, there's still this.

Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.
That's not zero.
So you have not proved that it is wrong.

So, if you can't set that basic math, how could you dare to ask me the following?

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:59:29
WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?

Because...

At the moment of the big bang, that symmetry did not hold.
But it does hold now; so you can't have spontaneous generation of matter/energy today.
This was already explained to you.

As we have explained.
Your idea fails because it is a breach of the conservation laws.
You can only break them one- at the start of the universe when the flow of time is not symmetrical (because there is an "after" but there is no "before".

This was pointed out to you before.
Did you forget it, or did you not understand it?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 29/09/2020 03:53:25
please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:

Why should I bother?[/quote]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/10/2020 05:27:40
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.

No, you didn't
You just pointed out that you don't understand that the accretion disk would form around the "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in.
It also overlooks the obvious fact that the stars that fell in were previously part of the milky way.
Those stars are in orbit round the galaxy. So they are already lined up pretty nearly into one plane of rotation.[/quote]



And so on.
Every time we tell you something, you ignore it.
I told you that you had done the wrong maths.
But you ignored it.

That's why I say that you should learn stuff, so...
WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's not that you did the maths wrong. You did the wrong maths.

As you claim that I have used the wrong math, then lease offer the correct math.
So, please introduce the correct math (based on your understanding) for our chance to be at a maximal distance of 12 BLY from the edge in a Universe with a radius of only 46 BLY.