[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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

Sure the correct maths is this
"By inspection; not zero".

Now, can you get back to addressing the fact that- regardless of any problems that may exist with the BBT, you disagree with yourself about the foundation of  "Theory D"

This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you  should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).

You said

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.

but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.

So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:26
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 15:02:32
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 please 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.

Sure the correct maths is this
"By inspection; not zero".

Well, I'm quite sure that you know that the math is correct.
However, you reject it as it proves that the BBT is useless.
Once we agree with that we will move on.

[Bored chemist]

This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you  should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).

You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.

but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.

So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you  should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).

This forum and this thread is all about real science.
When we discuss about any subject as the size of the Universe we must find the ultimate correct size for our universe.
It is not an issue for Theory D or BBT.
However, in order to verify what is the correct size, we must look at different theories and verify the impact of each theory on that size.
So, it is our obligation to set the expected different sizes of any theory and verify which one might be the correct one.
Hence, our mission isn't to kill the BBT or theory D, but to find the "The Ultimate Theory for the Universe"
Theory D is just a name. We could also call it BBT v2.
So, if your mission is to find "The Ultimate Theory for the Universe" then we must work together in order to see which one might offer the correct size for our Universe.
If your mission is just to keep the BBT and kill any other theory, then you are doing excellent job.
I would recommend the Nobel prize Council (which should be called the BBT Council) to offer you the highest reward for your excellent job for keeping that BBT alive.
Therefore, real science isn't part of your mission, it is all about BBT and only BBT.
However, it is part of my mission.
For quite long time I was wondering how anyone with basic science knowledge could even consider that the BBT is correct.
Now I understand that most of you know that it is clearly incorrect, but you do whatever it takes to protect it.
So, I have no intention to convince you personally that the BBT is wrong as you already know that.
My intention was to focus only on real science.
However, you would do whatever it takes to protect the BBT and kill any other theory which could replace it.
Hence, you don't care about real science - you only care about BBT as it represents for you the real meaning for real science.
Therefore, you give yourself a freedom to use any sort of misleading information in order to protect the BBT.

As a person that claims for deep knowledge in science, you must have some understanding in basic statistic math.
If you were teacher in elementary school, and question was as follow:
"Let's assume that you are located in a ball sphere shape with a radius of 46m.
What is the chance to be located at a maximal distance of 12 m from the edge of the sphere."
It is very clear to me that you would expect to get an answer that the chance for that is over than 70%.
Any student that claims the following answer:
 

the correct maths is this "By inspection; not zero".

Would be requested by you to bring its parents immediately.

Hence, Based on the BBT our chance to be located near the edge of the observable Universe is over than 70%.
This is very clear to you!!!
However, you reject it as it could negatively affect the BBT which you must so badly to protect.

Therefore, your real mission is to protect the BBT and you would use any incorrect and misleading information to confuse the other party.
I really wonder how it could be that even Kryptid protect your approach.

[Bored chemist]

Theory D is just a name.

It is an inaccurate name too, because it's not a theory.

As a person that claims for deep knowledge in science, you must have some understanding in basic statistic math.
If you were teacher in elementary school, and question was as follow:
"Let's assume that you are located in a ball sphere shape with a radius of 46m.
What is the chance to be located at a maximal distance of 12 m from the edge of the sphere."
It is very clear to me that you would expect to get an answer that the chance for that is over than 70%.

Imagine that the teacher said that he thought the answer was zero.
Wouldn't it be right for me (or any other pupil)  to say "I don't know- or care- what the actual answer is, but it is clearly not zero. You are saying  something stupid"?

Well, that's what I am doing.
You are saying it's got a 30% chance of happening and so it is impossible.
And I am saying that 30% is not zero.

It's time for the parents to complain to the headmaster about the teaching.

So, once again

This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you  should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).

You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.

but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.

So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

[pzkpfw]

How is "edge of the observable Universe" supposed to make any sense in the first place?
Dave Lev is as usual arguing against his own misconceptions, not current science.

(Dave Lev, you never answered my question about whether you thought gravity assist ("slingshot") was literally "free".)

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How is "edge of the observable Universe" supposed to make any sense in the first place?

Let's assume that we are located near the edge of the Universe. What should we see?
Don't you agree that we would clearly see that in one side the sky is full with galaxies while in the other it is almost empty?

Dave Lev is as usual arguing against his own misconceptions, not current science.

Would you kindly give an example.

(Dave Lev, you never answered my question about whether you thought gravity assist ("slingshot") was literally "free".)

I do not recall that question. Please set it again.

magine that the teacher said that he thought the answer was zero.

Well, if the teacher has a basic knowledge in statistics he would know that kind of answer should be stay in your imagination.
Sorry for my example – even if your answer is technically correct, It is very clear that you are not qualify for been teacher.

You are saying it's got a 30% chance of happening and so it is impossible.

If you accept that the chance not to be near the edge of the Observable universe (from Zero to 34 BLY) is less than 30%, then you have to agree that the chance to be near the edge is over then 70%.
So, you also have to agree that the chance that the BBT is correct is 30% while the chance that it is incorrect is 70%.

Therefore, I agree that 30% is higher than zero, however - A theory which has a chance of 70% to be incorrect should be set in the Garbage long time ago.

[Bored chemist]

It is very clear that you are not qualify for been teacher.

I kept on explaining something until you understood it.
That means I am your teacher.

Would you kindly give an example.

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

We all know it breaks the conservation laws.

Therefore, I agree that 30% is higher than zero,

It took nearly a week for you to accept that. A school pupil would have spotted it sooner.

And, since it is a calculation about "the edge of the universe" - which does not really exist- it is "the wrong maths"- as I told you repeatedly. (again; you would not listen).
Do you see that it is you who is so passionate in defence of your idea that you can not see the truth? It's not that I'm obsessed with the BBT, it's that you are obsessed with "theory D"- you even get upset when people explain that it isn't a theory.

"Theory D" should be put with the other garbage.

If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address this

So, once again
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you  should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).

You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.

but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.

So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

[pzkpfw]

Let's assume that we are located near the edge of the Universe. What should we see?
Don't you agree that we would clearly see that in one side the sky is full with galaxies while in the other it is almost empty?

No!

That's a perfect example of where you seem to have no idea at all what current scientific thinking is.

Wherever I am in the Universe, even at the edge of what we currently can observe, I'd be at the centre of my own observable part of the Universe.

You presumably think of "space" as something like an endless simple three dimensional void in which the BB occurred and which has resulted in a sphere of "stuff" that has an edge in that void.

Whatever the topology and size of the Universe, current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded. I expect you won't like that but that's a different issue.

(
On the question:
See: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607830#msg607830
This was when the thread topic was mostly your idea that black holes are somehow an endless energy source.
)

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Whatever the topology and size of the Universe, current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded. I expect you won't like that but that's a different issue.

Wow
Thank you for this important information!!!
So you claim that the "current thinking" is that the Universe is unbounded.
The meaning of unbounded is unlimited.
So, if I understand you correctly, the current thinking of our scientists is that the Universe is Unlimited.
That is the most important message that I have got so far!!!
Where have you been???

I was waiting for you for too long time.
How could you even consider that I wouldn't like it?

Few questions:
1. Current thinking - When this current thinking took place? In other words, when our scientists have finely understood that our Universe must be unlimited?
Did it take pace yesterday, last month or just year?
Just for your information, I know it for the last 12 Years.

2. Infinite - Yes, Your message is perfect

In short, it's either infinite

So, it is very clear that unlimited universe means infinite Universe.
Therefore, in my first message about theory D I have stated that the Universe must be infinite.

3. Finite but unbounded-

or finite but unbounded

How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?
Based on Google translate the meaning of finite is "limited". Not unlimited but Limited!!!
So, how could it be that a "finite" Universe which means "limited" Universe could suddenly be transformed to unlimited Universe?
Therefore, if the radius of the Universe is only 46 BLY, how could it be that if we stay exactly at the edge/end of that radius (at the 46BLY from the center), we should still see unlimited universe?
How do you do that magic???

[Bored chemist]

So you claim that the "current thinking" is that the Universe is unbounded.

No; he didn't.

The meaning of unbounded is unlimited.

No, it isn't.

So, if I understand you correctly...

No, you don't.

How could you even consider that I wouldn't like it?

Because it says the exact opposite of what you have said.
Unfortunately, you are so blinded by your support for you idea, that you can't see this.

How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?
Based on Google translate the meaning of finite is "limited". Not unlimited but Limited!!!

OK, so, you have worked out that you don't understand it.
Why not take his word for it when he says "

I expect you won't like that

?

If you want it to be taken seriously, you need to address this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/10/2020 08:52:09
So, once again
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 20:07:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/10/2020 17:19:15
This thread is meant to be about "Theory D" so you  should answer questions about that- rather than talking about BBT (which you plainly don't understand).

You said
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
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.

but you know it is wrong. I showed that you can have a finite universe with a finite age and which you accepted also could have the same CMBR.

So, as I asked before, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

[Bored chemist]

How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?

If you had done your homework, you would know this.
But you didn't even bother to find out what the current model of the universe is before claiming to have proved that it is wrong.

[pzkpfw]

How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?

If you had done your homework, you would know this.
But you didn't even bother to find out what the current model of the universe is before claiming to have proved that it is wrong.

Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!

Don't know how you find the energy Bored chemist, but I appreciate your posts in this thread.

[Bored chemist]

Don't know how you find the energy Bored chemist,

A combination of monumental bloodymindedness, and the desire to see that nonsense doesn't get the last word on science sites.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!

You have just proved that you can't even backup your own message.
Why do you suddenly contradicts yourself?
What was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is either infinite or finite but unbounded?

current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.

Could it be that based on your personal approach - the real meaning of what you say is the opposite of what you say?
So, what was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite or finite but unbounded"?
As you and BC claim for deep knowledge in science - How a Universe in your science imagination could be finite but unbounded?

[Bored chemist]

Have you done your homework yet?

What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?

[pzkpfw]

Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!

You have just proved that you can't even backup your own message.
Why do you suddenly contradicts yourself?
What was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is either infinite or finite but unbounded?

current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.

Could it be that based on your personal approach - the real meaning of what you say is the opposite of what you say?
So, what was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite or finite but unbounded"?

I'm not interested in discussing the size or shape of the Universe with you. I've seen that's pointless.

I was mostly interested in pointing out that you don't know the science you are arguing against. (You pick and choose what science you accept, and build long chains of reasoning based on your own ideas, but portrayed as though they are obvious and accepted.)

(Edit: That was also my intent with the question here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607830#msg607830 )

There is no edge to the Universe. Your personal view is that there is, but that's not current science.

[Bored chemist]

Have you done your homework yet?

What does "finite but unbounded" mean?
Can you give an example?