[Bored chemist]

I have proved that based on the BBT Math the maximal distance of any object (even if it has an infinite redshift) is only about 15 BLY.

That's still not true.
The observable universe is about 4 times bigger.
Why are you trying to repeat this lie?

It is a theory for a limited size Universe (15BLY maximal redshift size) and the whole math is based on this size.

No
The theory does not actually depend on, or predict the size.
You need observations to do that.
The stated size agrees with the observations (and the idea of an infinite universe hasn't agreed with any theory since Olber's day.)

Any scientist who believes in real science must understand by now that the BBT is useless theory for infinite Universe.

It works just fine for a finite observable universe .

So as long as the astronomy science is under the control of those BBT scientists

There's no such thing as a "BBT scientist".
There are scientists and there are people like you who ignore the laws of physics and pretend that an infinite universe is possible.
Such a universe would collapse under its own weight.
Do you not see that?

[evan_au]

Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?

I've not read his work.
But it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite".
That means he has come up with a theory (which he cannot prove at this time) that the Universe may be infinite.

That hypothesis is not necessarily incompatible with the Big Bang.

He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.

As of now, that NASA telescope is sitting on the ground, all folded up, waiting for the COVID-19 pandemic to pass so they can finish preparing it for launch.

It is a very complicated piece of equipment, and unfortunately, it suffered a "big bang" event of its own while undergoing vibration tests back in 2016. Some of the fittings broke loose. Better that it happened on the ground, rather than during the real launch!
See: https://spacenews.com/no-damage-to-jwst-after-vibration-test-anomaly/

Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.
However, we clearly know that our Universe must be much bigger than that.

We do know that the universe is larger than this. And this is alluded to in the last sentence on the page that you linked to...

Note that if the expansion universe were to ... speed up, galaxies currently in our visible universe would leave it!

We now have considerable evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and this is convincing enough that the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for this discovery. So the "Hubble Constant" assumed in your calculation is not a constant, and the distance calculated by your equation is an underestimate.

How much of an underestimate, nobody is quite sure as yet...

Measuring the redshift of distant galaxies is relatively easy compared to measuring their distance. But a number of surveys are continuing this search in an attempt to refine estimates of the cosmological acceleration. At present, it appears to be a reasonable fit to the "cosmological constant" in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (but with a very different value than he originally assigned to this constant). 

So Big Bang theorists agree that the universe is bigger than you calculated. But whether it is infinite is a whole other question.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

The highest redshift we can observe with light is the CMBR, which was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K, and now has a redshifted temperature of about 2.7K, a redshift of around 1000:1.

Some scientists are hopeful that they may be able to measure the expansion of the universe with new techniques using more sensitive gravitational wave detectors to measure the distance and time dilation of black hole collisions.

[Halc]

[Mather] is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.

That telescope is yielding no data, so your statement is true to a fashion. His position makes him a sort of engineer more than anything, being in charge of implementing/deploying the device, not operating it once it has been put into operation.
He actually does look through the things, as evidenced by the Nobel prize, but the position as described for this project is portrayed more as the engineer than the scientist.

Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY

This quote is from a source of unknown origin. I see it copied on many sites, but I cannot find the original.
First of all, a figure to 3 significant figures cannot yield one of 10.5 significant digits.  The article does not state the latter figure, so that mistake is yours.  Secondly, the distance computed does not specify the coordinate system used.  It appears to use light-travel-time, which is only meaningful in a flat Minkowski coordinate system, which does not correspond to the universe. Better (accepted) figures below.

And to emphasize what Evan says in the prior post, none of this has anything to do with the size of the universe any more than the size of a jail cell in which you spend your life has an bearing on the size of the jail.

We do know that the universe is larger than this. And this is alluded to in the last sentence on the page that you linked to...

Note that if the expansion universe were to ... speed up, galaxies currently in our visible universe would leave it!

That is another mistake in that text. Something leaving the visible universe is not a function of the expansion rate. The visible universe (estimated current radius of 46 BLY proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time) is a property of an event (Earth, here, now) and refers to comoving distance to the worldline of a comoving object currently on our particle horizon.  That’s a lot more than 4.17 Gpc.
Changes to the expansion rate of the universe cannot effect a galaxy entering or leaving that radius.  Only a deviation from being a comoving object can.  So it would be more correct to say that any galaxy near that radius with recessional peculiar velocity (which isn’t a function of the expansion rate) might leave our visible universe. There’s no way that galaxy is visible to us. That’s not what the term ‘visible universe’ means.

What the paper appears to be talking about is the event horizon. (defined for a worldline, not an event).  The event horizon delimits the set of events in the universe that can ever have a causal effect on said worldline (typically that of Earth) given infinite time. The size of that is a bit over 16 BLY, and would be infinite if the expansion rate was not accelerating at all.
An accelerating expansion rate (which is different than a Hubble ‘constant’ that is increasing) can cause a comoving object to cross the event horizon. All the most distant objects that we see today have done this. GN-z11 for instance is currently twice that distance, having crossed the event horizon nearly 10 BY ago, but the image we see of it is from back when it was inside that horizon.

So the "Hubble Constant" assumed in your calculation is not a constant, and the distance calculated by your equation is an underestimate.

It was never a constant, but just something that is known to so few digits (just one) that it effectively isn’t going to change during the history of humanity.  If the scale factor was linear (constant expansion), then the Hubble ‘constant’ would be exactly 1/age-of-universe, which is amazingly close to what it is today.  The ‘constant’ is currently about 70 km/sec/Mpc, and is projected (FLRW model) to settle down to an actual eventual constant of about 57 km/sec/Mpc in the long run.  It would forever decrease as an inverse of time without dark energy.
This Hubble constant defines a Hubble-Sphere, which is yet another measure of the size of the universe, defined as the radius beyond which a comoving object recedes from some worldline (Earth) at a rate greater than c.  That radius is about 14 BLY give or take.

Finally, there is the size given by the proper distance from a worldline passing through event X (Earth today) to any event that can possibly have had a causal effect on us.  This radius is under 6GLY, meaning no light that has ever been 6GLY away from us has ever reached us.  The universe could simply end there and we would not be able to detect it.  This radius increases with time as light from those more distant events is given time to reach Earth’s worldline.  At t=infinity, this radius merges with the event horizon.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?

I've not read his work.
But it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite".
That means he has come up with a theory (which he cannot prove at this time) that the Universe may be infinite.
That hypothesis is not necessarily incompatible with the Big Bang.

Well, if you didn't read his article then how do you know that it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite"?

https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."

I didn't find any hint for "hypothesize" in that article. Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.
Dr John has surly deep knowledge in science. As NASA' senior scientist he is well aware about all the observation data from the current operated telescopes.
He also well aware that he represents NASA and his article is published at NASA web site.
Therefore, as he has full confidence in the idea of Infinite Universe, there is good chance that he has key information which convinced him that our Universe is infinite.
I agree that his idea by itself won't convert the Universe into infinite Universe.
However, I have found one more article which could support that idea:
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning
https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
In this article it is stated that the Big Bang is under fire as
" In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached."
They also add:
"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.
There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled."
"Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time."

The outcome is:
" In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old."

So, in this article our scientists have found that our Universe is infinity old

They do not claim directly for infinite Universe.
However, an infinite old Universe might leads to infinity Universe.

So, Dr John might base his understanding for Infinite Universe also on this kind of article.

Therefore, even if you don't like the idea of infinite Universe, you have to agree that it is feasible.

The highest redshift we can observe with light is the CMBR, which was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K, and now has a redshifted temperature of about 2.7K, a redshift of around 1000:1.

Why do you claim in so high confidence that the CMBR "was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K,"
Can we really measure that temp?
Don't you agree that it is just a conclusion due to the BBT?
So, when you discuss about hypothesized:

hypothesized

This is the real hypothesized idea as we can't measure that high temp today.
So, we have to say:
Based on the BBT, the hypothesized idea is that the CMBR was emitted at the era of recombination at a temperature of around 3000K

We now have considerable evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating

No,
we have no evidence for Expansion in space of the Universe.
All we see are galaxies.
We only see expansion in galaxies and not expansion of the Universe.
So, the expansion in the Universe is one more hypothesized idea of our scientists.
Therefore, our scientists had to claim that the expansions of the Galaxies are accelerating and not the expansion of the Universe itself.
That statement by itself is misleading information by our scientists.

Measuring the redshift of distant galaxies is relatively easy compared to measuring their distance.

Redshift is all about velocity.
However, based on the BBT our scientists have limited the maximal distance of the redshift.
They claim that even at infinite redshift, the maximal distance is 15 BLY.

Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.
Also the redshift of 1100 in the CMBR proves that it comes from very far away location
I really can't understand based on what real physics law our scientists are using a redshift of a galaxy in order to determined its age

So why our scientists are so sure that the CMBR is an echo from the early days of the Universe.
Why can't we just assume that the CMBR is due to the radiation of our current Universe (Finite or Infinite)?
Why the redshift can't represents unlimited velocity/distance in our Universe.
Why do we insist to limit that size of our universe by that Hubble size of about 15 BLY?
Why an infinite redshift can't represent an infinite velocity/distance?

[Bored chemist]

Well, if you didn't read his article then how do you know that it is it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite"?

Because we know what a hypothesis is.

Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.

He may well be confident, but it hasn't been proved, so it's hypothetical.
Did you not understand that?

you have to agree that it is feasible.

And that, you nitwit, is what a hypothesis means.

Can we really measure that temp?

Yes.
Hydrogen is still hydrogen.
We can measure the temperature of a hydrogen plasma in the lab today.
This one, for example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_arc_lamp
There's a picture of the spectrum. The bit that corresponds to the plasma (give or take some minor corrections) is the peak near the left hand end.
It's at about 250nM

And you can feed that into this calculator
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
to get the plasma temperature- it's about 11500K
Rather hotter than the recombination temperature- but that's because they drive the lamps hard to get as much light  (and as short a wavelength) as possible.

Now it's interesting to note that I know things like that and you clearly don't- or you wouldn't have needed to ask the question.

So it's clear that your views...

Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low ability
Therefore, you try to overcome your low ability by attacking other person.

about my ability are wrong.
I'm the one who knows  stuff; not you.

No,
we have no evidence for Expansion in space of the Universe.
All we see are galaxies.

And some of them "look like" they are travelling at more tan the speed of light- which is impossible.
So they must be in space that is moving away from us.

Again this is an example of a thing I understand, but you don't. Because you are the one with D K syndrome here.

Even at infinite redshift, the maximal distance is 15 BLY.

You did the wrong maths - you do that a lot.
It might be because you can't get it right, or it might be because you know that the right maths shows that you are wrong, so you refuse to look at it.

Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.

No.
I proved that you can get the same CMBR in a toy universe which is finite.

Please remember – redshift is all about distance.

It's mainly about the expansion of space.

I really can't understand based on what real physics law our scientists are using a redshift of a galaxy in order to determined its age

Then go away and learn.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

1. Hypothetical Idea

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27
Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.

He may well be confident, but it hasn't been proved, so it's hypothetical.

The BBT also hasn't been aproved, so how shall we know in which scientist we have to trust?
How could it be that when one group of scientists claims that the Universe is infinite in its size or in its age - this is hypothetical, while when the other group claims that the Universe is finite in its age and size then this is real science?

2. Temp

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27
Can we really measure that temp?

Yes.
Hydrogen is still hydrogen.
We can measure the temperature of a hydrogen plasma in the lab today.

How do we know that 13.4By ago the entire Universe was full ONLY with hot  hydrogen plasma?
Actually, based on the BBT, we observe some very far away galaxies that their estimated age is over than 12 BLY.
At that time (based on the BBT) the Temp of the Universe was still very high.
So, do we really see any signs of ultra high temp from those far away galaxies?
If we don't see, then the BBT is not just a hypothetical idea but totally unrealistic.

3. Expansion the space-
As I have already explained, we only see the expansion of galaxies and not the expansion in the Universe space.
The assumption that the space itself can expand is one of the biggest mistake of the modern science.
There is no way to increase the whole Universe space or decrease it.
The space in our Universe is fixed at any given moment and it must go to the infinity.
Therefore, I would like to see a real science law that permits the imagination of increasing or decreasing the whole space. (Please not BBT fiction math)
As the Universe space is fixed - forever and ever, we can wonder if the matter and the galaxies in our infinite universe space also go up to the infinity.
So, the question about the infinity should be as follow:
Could it be that there are galaxies up to the infinity or the galaxies are located at a finite size in the infinite Universe space?

4. Infinite Old Universe
In the following article our scientists prove that the idea of singularity isn't realistic and the Universe should be infinite Old.

Universe May Have Had No Beginning
https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
In this article it is stated that the Big Bang is under fire as
" In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached."
They also add:
"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.
There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled."
"Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time."

The outcome is:
" In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old."
So, in this article our scientists have found that our Universe is infinity old

If this calculation is correct, then the BBT with its limited age of 13.8 BY should be set in the garbage.

5. Redshift -
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!

It's mainly about the expansion of space.

Please prove it by real science law!
In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.
That transformation is a pure fiction as it violates the science law.
When we observe a far away galaxy with high redshift, that redshift can only tell us about its velocity relative to our location.
Any other estimation from that redshift is imagination!
Therefore, the BBT math which converts the redshift to distance or age is clearly incorrect!

6. BBR in the CMBR

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27
Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.

No.
I proved that you can get the same CMBR in a toy universe which is finite.

So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time duration (Only 60 MY - as it had been created during the era of recombination between 240 M to 300M years) forever and ever.
Therefore, the idea that we get today the CMBR from that Era is a pure fiction.

7. Inflation
Based on the inflation the Universe has to increase its space at billions times the speed of light.
Our scientists can't explain what is the requested force/energy that could set that kind of inflation.
They also can't explain what kind of force could stop that ultra high inflation.
Therefore, the idea of the inflation in the BBT should be considered as the Biggest imagination which had ever been set by scientist.
Never the less, Alan Harvey Guth have got the Nobel reward for his unrealistic Hypothetical idea as it saved the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
It is very clear that without the inflation idea - the BBT is useless.

Conclusions -
The BBT is not just an hypothetical idea. It should be set in the garbage.
We must look at our Universe without the BBT filter.
If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.
We would find that those scientists that claim that the Universe is Infinite Old are fully correct.
We would also find that those scientists that claim that the Universe is Infinite in its size are also fully correct.

[Bored chemist]

The BBT also hasn't been aproved, so how shall we know in which scientist we have to trust?

You follow the actual evidence, and the logic used by the person making the claim.
This is how we know that we can reject the hypothesis which you called "theory 4.
It's less reliable, but you can also make a judgement based on what the person has said before.
And, since we know that you talked a lot of nonsense in that thread (and this one) we are justified in not trusting what you say.

There's nothing special about science here- this is exactly the same way you would work out who to trust in any other walk of life.

How do we know that 13.4By ago the entire Universe was full ONLY with hot  hydrogen plasma?

We don't, but you would have to explain where the other stuff went. (The universe is mainly hydrogen)
It also doesn't matter.
Any hot dense plasma would act like a blackbody.
That's pretty much why it's called black.

Again, this is an example of things you don't know but which I do know.

As I have already explained, we only see the expansion of galaxies and not the expansion in the Universe space.

And I have explained that's all you need to be able to see to verify the expansion of space.

And some of them "look like" they are travelling at more than the speed of light- which is impossible.
So they must be in space that is moving away from us.

Again this is an example of a thing I understand, but you don't. Because you are the one with D K syndrome here.

When we observe a far away galaxy with high redshift, that redshift can only tell us about its velocity relative to our location.

When it tells us that the velocity is greater than the speed of light, you know that one of your assumptions is wrong.

If this calculation is correct, then the BBT with its limited age of 13.8 BY should be set in the garbage.

But you can't show that it is correct.

We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the hubble ratio was constant.

5. Redshift -
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!

And if the red shift indicates a speed above C something has gone wrong.

Please prove it by real science law!

see above
 

In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.

No.
We have measured the distance.
Do you understand that?
It's a measurement- not some thing from the theory.
The measurement would be true regardless of what theory you used. (The interesting thing is that the stuff which is further away is moving away from us faster. So, if you go far enough the recession velocity must exceed C- which is a problem.

And, if you know how far away something is and you know the speed of light then you know how long ago whatever you see actually happened.

That's just common sense.

So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time duration

Yes there is.
You can measure that radiation, so we know it is there.
We are saying it has been around for about 13 B years.
You are saying two things
It has been there forever- because you say the age is infinite, but you also say it couldn't still be there after 13 billion years.
Do you see the problem there?
You have contradicted yourself.

The BBT has a very simple explanation.
It has taken us that long to reach us because it has been racing across a universe which is expanding.
On the journey, it has been "stretched out" which is why it's now 2.7K

They also can't explain what kind of force could stop that ultra high inflation.

Whatever caused it ran out.

Therefore, the idea of the inflation in the BBT should be considered as the Biggest imagination which had ever been set by scientist.

Do you not realise it's not something we made up; it's something we saw?
It is an observation.

If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.

Nobody has actually said otherwise.
But please explain why, for things that are measured as being further away, the red shift, and thus the velocity, is bigger?
Because that means that the whole universe is rushing away from us. practically nothing has been observed with a blue shift.

And if it is infinitely old and is moving away from us, how come it is still here?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11
If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.

Nobody has actually said otherwise.

Thanks
This is real science!
Red shift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity!!!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11
5. Redshift -
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!

And if the red shift indicates a speed above C something has gone wrong.

No.
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept and agree in the real evidence that we clearly observe?
We have deeply discussed this issue before.
Einstein gave us the Relativity formula.
That formula works perfectly at a local space time.
Therefore it is not accepted to see locally anything that move faster than the speed of light.
So, in any local space time in the whole infinite Universe - nothing can move faster than the seed of light.
However, a far away space time has no obligation for our local space time.
Therefore, galaxies in that far away space time could move much faster than the speed of light with reference to us, but no one of them would be able to move faster than the speed of light with reference to any nearby galaxy in its local space time.
I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location
So, do you understand the meaning of real science?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11
In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.

No.
We have measured the distance.
Do you understand that?

No, This is incorrect.
In one hand our scientists are using the redshift for measuring the velocity:
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
In astrophysics, we use z = (Dl/lo) as the redshift, so velocities are related
to redshift simply by
v = cz."
However, on the other hand they use the reference in the redshift in order to estimate the distance of this galaxy in the maximal "visible universe" size of 4.17Gpc:
d  = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
    = (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc.                    (Size of visible universe)

I claim that this formula is just incorrect.
It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.

In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.

We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the Hubble ratio was constant.

First - if you call something constant - then in real science it is expected that it will be constant.
But as expected in our BBT imagination Universe a constant can't be a constant while you all are very happy...
Second - Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, therefore, you would never ever find any constant value for this constant to be used in that formula which should represents our Universe.
Therefore, this constant can't be considered as a real constant.
Hence, I claim that Hubble constant is NONSENCE!!!
We shouldn't use it in any formula.
That constant is the BIGGEST mistake of the modern science!
Einstein had set a cosmic constant in his formula.
Latter on he had stated that this was its biggest mistake.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20181030a/full/
“Einstein remarked to me many years ago that the cosmic repulsion idea was the biggest blunder he had made in his entire life.”

Unfortunately, our scientists have used that specific cosmic repulsion constant which  as the Hubble constant.
This is forbidden!!!
As Einstein has claimed that this cosmic constant is the Biggest mistake of his life, then all the 100,000 BBT scientists must understand that it is his biggest mistake of his life!
How do they dare to violate Einstein formula and also still call it Einstein Formula?

Any scientist which accept this severe violation in Einstein formula can't be considered as scientist.
How do you dare to carry the name of Einstein while you all violate his will???
You tell me that due to Einstein relativity Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, while on the other hand you totally ignore his request for NOT adding that constant in his formula.
Shame on you and shame to all the BBT scientists which accept that severe violation.

I call you all "BBT scientists" as any scientist that accept the idea of adding the Hubble constant in Einstein formula can't be considered as real scientist.

So - all of you have to take a decision.
If you carry the name of Einstein, then please take out the Hubble constant from Einstein formula and set it in the garbage.
If you can't do so, then please don't carry Einstein name for nothing any more!!!
From now on we all must agree that the Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will.

Therefore, as the whole BBT is based on that constant, once you set this Hubble constant in the garbage, the BBT would follow it to the garbage.

Is it clear to you?

CMBR

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11
So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time duration

Yes there is.
You can measure that radiation, so we know it is there.

How can you claim such nonsense?
The idea that we get CMBR doesn't prove that your understanding about its source is correct!

We are saying it has been around for about 13 B years.

Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.
This radiation travels at the speed of light, so you technically can't hold it forever.

The BBT has a very simple explanation.
It has taken us that long to reach us because it has been racing across a universe which is expanding.
On the journey, it has been "stretched out" which is why it's now 2.7K

As you claim that it is so easy to explain that radiation, let me offer you the following example:
Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.
You are free to move yourself in space at the speed of light or ask the space to take you at the speed of light.
In any case, after moving away from the laser source in the speed of light for only 13.4 days (instead of Billion 13.4 BY in the BBT), what might be the amplitude of the radiation from that laser beam that you should get?
Try to explain how could you get any radiation while you moving away from that source at the speed of light.

And if it is infinitely old and is moving away from us, how come it is still here?

If you won't violate Einstein formula by that Hubble constant.
If you would know that there is no way to "stretched out" the CMBR in our real Universe
If you would base your knowledge ONLY on real science

You would know that what we see is what we have
So the CMBR represents the radiation in our current real Universe.
As I have stated, the amplitude in the CMBR and the BBR tells us the real size and shape of our Universe.
Please be aware that CMBR was exactly the same 100,000,000 Trillion Years ago and it will be the same in the next 100,000,000... Trillion years.
This is real science!!!
So, once we set the Hubble constant (which isn't constant) and all related BBT math which is based on that constant in the garbage, we can discuss real science..

Let me reuse your following statement:

Again, this is an example of things you don't know but which I do know.

[Bored chemist]

No.
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.

And, of course, that's impossible.

If it was the other way round, and the supporters of BBT were glibly saying it moves faster than light you would be the first  to claim that was absurd.
Yet you accept it.
And then you tell the lie that your "Theory D" hypothesis is consistent with the laws of physics.

Perhaps we should invent a name for this class of people who ignore the rules of nature in order to support your view.
We can call them "theory dim scientists".
As far a I can tell you are the only "theory dim scientist".

I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location

Because space is expanding.

Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.

It is inthe universe.
Where else could it go?
There isn't any way for it to leave the universe.
So obviously, it is still here (Until it hits something).

Why do you think I need to prove that?
There isn't anywhere else it could be, is there?

How can you claim such nonsense?
The idea that we get CMBR doesn't prove that your understanding about its source is correct!

The same is true of your "alternative" idea- with the problems that you need to explain how something so cold emitted so much light.

Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.

OK
The frequency of visible light is about 500 THz
So, in each second the electromagnetic field goes up and down 500,000,000,000,000 times and, in 60 seconds it will oscillate through 60 times as many cycles.
That's 3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs.
Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of light and that the radiation, when it reaches me has been stretched out into the microwave region at about 1GHz.
I still see the full set of  3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs, but there's now a much longer (a nanosecond) interval between each one.
So it now takes 6 million seconds for them all to reach me.
That's about a month.

Now, the original "flash" of the universe will have been a lot longer than a minute so there's no problem with the radiation arriving here over a very long period of time.

It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.

Why?

In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.

WHat else would they use.
Also, it's not the only way in which we measure distances, and the measurements agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

So, if the red shift works for those, and the universe is homogeneous- as you claim there's nothing to stop the red shift working at other distances, is there?
And since it works, we should use it- rather than listening to the "theory dim scientists"

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Why do you ignore the message from Einstein about his biggest mistake of adding a constant (Hubble constant) in his formula?

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:00:59
We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the Hubble ratio was constant.

First - if you call something constant - then in real science it is expected that it will be constant.
But as expected in our BBT imagination Universe a constant can't be a constant while you all are very happy...
Second - Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, therefore, you would never ever find any constant value for this constant to be used in that formula which should represents our Universe.
Therefore, this constant can't be considered as a real constant.
Hence, I claim that Hubble constant is NONSENCE!!!
We shouldn't use it in any formula.
That constant is the BIGGEST mistake of the modern science!
Einstein had set a cosmic constant in his formula.
Latter on he had stated that this was its biggest mistake.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20181030a/full/
“Einstein remarked to me many years ago that the cosmic repulsion idea was the biggest blunder he had made in his entire life.”

Unfortunately, our scientists have used that specific cosmic repulsion constant which  as the Hubble constant.
This is forbidden!!!
As Einstein has claimed that this cosmic constant is the Biggest mistake of his life, then all the 100,000 BBT scientists must understand that it is his biggest mistake of his life!
How do they dare to violate Einstein formula and also still call it Einstein Formula?

Any scientist which accept this severe violation in Einstein formula can't be considered as scientist.
How do you dare to carry the name of Einstein while you all violate his will???
You tell me that due to Einstein relativity Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, while on the other hand you totally ignore his request for NOT adding that constant in his formula.
Shame on you and shame to all the BBT scientists which accept that severe violation.

I call you all "BBT scientists" as any scientist that accept the idea of adding the Hubble constant in Einstein formula can't be considered as real scientist.

So - all of you have to take a decision.
If you carry the name of Einstein, then please take out the Hubble constant from Einstein formula and set it in the garbage.
If you can't do so, then please don't carry Einstein name for nothing any more!!!
From now on we all must agree that the Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will.

Therefore, as the whole BBT is based on that constant, once you set this Hubble constant in the garbage, the BBT would follow it to the garbage.

Is it clear to you?

[Bored chemist]

Why do you ignore the message from Einstein about his biggest mistake of adding a constant (Hubble constant) in his formula?

Because we have evidence.

Why do you try to use logical fallacies- such as "argument by authority" which just get you laughed at?

[puppypower]

The second law states that the entropy of the universe increases over time. Since entropy absorbs energy and entropy has to increase over time, energy is being made unusable to the universe, since it is tied up in ever increasing entropy.

Since energy has to be conserved; Energy Conservation, than this implies there is an increasing pool of dead energy, associated with entropy, that is not net reusable by the universe. This accumulating pool of dead energy has a connection to the unidirectional flow of time to the future. Time does not cycle like a clock, because the past had more useable energy in play, than does the present or the future. Different points in time cannot replace each other, but can only go forward to  places of less usable energy due to the second law.

This dead pool of accumulating energy creates a problem for all the existing theoretical traditions connected to the universe. None of these take into the account the dead pool of energy, associate with the second law. For example, the cyclic or infinite universe theories both assume the wrong energy balances since the dead pool implies the future cannot be the same as the past, but rather the universe will eventually have no useable energy and only dead pool energy. The universe has one life, unless dead pool energy is somehow released again.

The question is, how would one describe dead pool energy? We know ir comes from entropy increasing. Entropy is a state variable meaning for any given state of matter, there is a given amount of measurable entropy. Dead pool energy, if energy is conserved, would be analogous to living memories of past entropic states. 

The past is over, but the past still has a connection to the present, by the foundation it laid and the trajectory it created. For example, A galaxy can be hundreds of millions of light years in size and all appear coordinated. This seems odd since the speed of light is too slow to coordinate a large galaxy in real time using gravity. Yet coordination happens, due to a trajectory from the past; dead pool memory of previous entropic states.

The energy signals we receive from the early universe do not represent the present state of the universe, but come from previous states of the universe that no longer exist.  These previous states had an impact on the trajectory to the present. We have no clue of the material present beyond what is next to us. It appears we are confusing dead pool energy with the current useable energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Why do you ignore the message from Einstein about his biggest mistake of adding a constant (Hubble constant) in his formula?

Because we have evidence.

Sorry - there is not even one evidence to confirm the BBT imagination.
So, let's try to understand those "evidences"

1. BBT Math
As the Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, that constant should be set in the garbage.
Once you do so, the whole BBT math is useless.

2. Distance vs. Redshift

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.
Why?

As we all agree that redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity, it can't be used to evaluate any sort of distance.
Therefore, it is forbidden to use the redshift in any formula for distance calculation!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.
WHat else would they use.
Also, it's not the only way in which we measure distances, and the measurements agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

So, if the red shift works for those, and the universe is homogeneous- as you claim there's nothing to stop the red shift working at other distances, is there?
And since it works, we should use it- rather than listening to the "theory dim scientists"

In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova
"The similarity in the absolute luminosity profiles of nearly all known Type Ia supernovae has led to their use as a secondary standard candle in extragalactic astronomy.[49] Improved calibrations of the Cepheid variable distance scale[50] and direct geometric distance measurements to NGC 4258 from the dynamics of maser emission[51] when combined with the Hubble diagram of the Type Ia supernova distances have led to an improved value of the Hubble constant."
However, NGC 4258 is located at a distance of only 23.7 ± 1.5 Mly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_106
So, our scientists try to improve the Hubble constant based on relatively nearby galaxy.
That is a severe mistake.
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-a-redshift
In the following redshift/distance diagram we clearly see that at a distance of 15 MPC (virgo cluster) some galaxies are moving at 500 Km/s and other at almost 2000 Km/s
So, there is no real correlation between distances to redshift for galaxies which are located at a distance above 15MPC.
Therefore, the Hubble constant might be Ok for nearby galaxy, but it surly can't give a correct estimation for far away galaxies.
Therefore, the following formula is just incorrect:
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
Hubble found a linear relationship between distance and redshift
v = cz = Hod
There is no linear relationship between distance to redshift.
I have just proved it and it goes worst as the distance is increasing.

3. CMBR

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.

OK
The frequency of visible light is about 500 THz
So, in each second the electromagnetic field goes up and down 500,000,000,000,000 times and, in 60 seconds it will oscillate through 60 times as many cycles.
That's 3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs.
Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of light and that the radiation, when it reaches me has been stretched out into the microwave region at about 1GHz.
I still see the full set of  3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs, but there's now a much longer (a nanosecond) interval between each one.
So it now takes 6 million seconds for them all to reach me.
That's about a month.

Now, the original "flash" of the universe will have been a lot longer than a minute so there's no problem with the radiation arriving here over a very long period of time.

Well, if you move exactly at the speed of light you won't get any radiation from that laser beam.
Therefore, you have stated that you move nearly the speed of light:

Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of light

At that case you might get some radiation, but it would be so low that you would never be able to detect it.
If you are moving at 1/2c than at the maximal, you would double the time that you can see that radiation.
However, as you are located further away the radiation should drop dramatically.
So, even after few Millisecond, you won't be able to detect any real radiation.

Therefore, if we are moving at the speed of light with reference to the Recombination Era radiation, we won't get any radiation for that era.
If we move at almost the speed of light, we might get some but it would be so dramatically low and actually undetectable.
If we move at 1/2 c than we might get the radiation - but only for 60 My * 2 = 120 MY.
In any case, as we increasing distance to that Era, it s very clear that the energy of the radiation should drop dramatically and after just few years or MY we won't be able to detect any radiation energy
Therefore, the idea that even after 13.4 BY we can still detect a radiation from that era is a clear imagination. 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.

It is inthe universe.
Where else could it go?
There isn't any way for it to leave the universe.

In a finite Universe some galaxies must be located near the edge of the Universe.
So, as the galaxies at this space time can't move faster than the speed of light, the radiation at that aria must cross the edge.
If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.

4. Faster than the speed of light

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
No.
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.
And, of course, that's impossible.

Yes it is possible!
Relativity is only related to relatively local space time.
Therefore, Galaxies at a different space time can move faster than the speed of light with reference to each other.
I have already deeply explained it

4. Expansion

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28
I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location

Because space is expanding.

No
It is due to different space time and not due to the expansion in space as the space is fixed forever and ever!!!
I have asked you before and I ask you again
Show the science formula that permits the idea of space expansion.
Please do not use the BBT math imagination.
Only real science law!

Conclusion

As Einstein has stated that it is forbidden to add the cosmological constant in his formula, then the Hubble constant can't be used in his formula.
As we drop that constant in the garbage, the BBT isn't valid any more.
Hence, there is no need to continue the discussion about the BBT imagination

[Bored chemist]

BBT Math

We already pointed out that you were doing the wrong maths because the hubble ratio isn't a constant.

As we all agree that redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity, it can't be used to evaluate any sort of distance.
Therefore, it is forbidden to use the redshift in any formula for distance calculation!

Nonsense.
We know it works; so we use it.

So, our scientists try to improve the Hubble constant based on relatively nearby galaxy.
That is a severe mistake.

What else should they use?
Dance?

At that case you might get some radiation, but it would be so low that you would never be able to detect it.

Bollocks.
If the laser is sending out some energy then I will receive that energy.
OK because it's spread over a longer time, the intensity is lower but then, the intensity of the CMBR is pretty low.
That's not actually a problem if you understand science.
I see you are struggling with it.

So, there is no real correlation between distances to redshift for galaxies which are located at a distance above

You don't know what a correlation is, do you?
That data is strongly correlated- even if you don't want to admit it.

So, even after few Millisecond, you won't be able to detect any real radiation.

The energy was sent out.
I can detect energy when it reaches me.
So if you say it doesn't arrive, you need to explain where it went.

Again, you simply fail to grasp the conservation laws. Why not learn science?

Hubble found a linear relationship between distance and redshift
...
There is no linear relationship between distance to redshift.

Which one do you mean?
He did get a stack of prizes for it you know... Don't you think they checked...?

Yes it is possible!

The use of an exclamation mark does not permit you to travel faster than light.

If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.

If you really think the finite thing should be considered infinite, you are a fool.

If we move at almost the speed of light, we might get some but it would be so dramatically low and actually undetectable.

We are looking at the radiation from an arc lamp  the size of the universe, and we can barely see it because it has been stretched out until it looks like the "thermal " radiation from something in liquid helium.
We do get some. It is "dramatically low" but because proper scientists are doing the work rather than "theory dim scientists" they can measure it.

As Einstein has stated that it is forbidden

He is dead. He does not have a say in it.

there is no need to continue the discussion about the BBT imagination

No reason except that practically everything you say is wrong or impossible.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12
As Einstein has stated that it is forbidden

He is dead. He does not have a say in it.

As long as you use his formula and carry his name, then you can't ignore his will.
So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.
Therefore - even as he doesn't live today - we must accept his will and take that constant out from his formula.
If we keep it - we can't call it Einstein formula.

In any case, I have tried to get better understanding on this issue:
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/17/einsteins-greatest-blunder-was-really-a-blunder
In this article we understand the history of that cosmologic constant.
Einstein has used it in order to solve the idea of static Universe.
"He proposed that there was an intrinsic energy to space itself, a cosmological constant, responsible for this. This cosmological constant would push back with exactly the force needed to counteract gravity on these large scales, and would lead to the Universe being static."
So, Einstien has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.
Latter on he had found that it was a severe mistake and therefore he eliminated that constant.

However, our scientists are using today this forbidden constant to solve the expansion of the Galaxies problem.
Hence, instead of using that constant as intrinsic energy to space itself they used it for the Hubble constant.
The outcome is very clear as stated-

"The cosmological constant may have come back, but it has nothing to do with the reasons Einstein proposed for its existence, nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested. Sometimes old ideas come back in new forms to solve new puzzles"

So, as our scientists are using that constant not for the reasons Einstein proposed for its existence, and nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested, that Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will,
Therefore, that constant should be set in the garbage and the sooner is better.
In any case, if our scientists insist to use that forbidden constant in Einstein formula,  while it clearly doesn't represent the original idea of intrinsic energy to space itself and nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested - than please
They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formula
As long as our scientists use that Hubble constant in his formula and call it Einstein formula - they clearly carry Einstein Name for nothing!!!
This isn't real science - It is the BBT science!

Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12
BBT Math

We already pointed out that you were doing the wrong maths because the hubble ratio isn't a constant.

So you are using a constant which isn't constant.
That one more evidence why that constant shouldn't be used in Einstein formula.
Therefore, the BBT math which is based on this constant should be set in the garbage.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12
If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.

If you really think the finite thing should be considered infinite, you are a fool.

You miss my intention.
I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infinite even if we call it "unbounded finite Universe" or a "finite universe without edge"!!!
So, as our scientists claim that our universe has no edge or unbounded - our Universe MUST be infinite!!!

[Xeon]

If you didn't understand the Big Bang theory when it was explained to you in all of your other threads, you're not going to understand it in this one either.

Is your answer educational ? 

Actually , most of you don't understand the big bang either . If you understood the theory you'd know that the theory is incomplete , stating the universe formed from a hot dense state without explanation of how this hot dense state was formed . Perhaps you can shed some light on this process ?

Boo to your reply sir.

[Bored chemist]

then you can't ignore his will.

What a stupid notion...
Of course I can.
Also, While it's clear that Newton was wrong, NASA scientists used newtonian physics to put a man on the moon.

So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.

He said that- or , at least, he's reported to have said it.

Which means he was wrong.
Either he was wrong the first time, or he was wrong the second time.
It's not possible from his work to find out which.
But it is possible to find out by making  measurements and observations.
We have done that.
The universe is expanding and it does not matter what a dead man thought.

However, our scientists are using today this forbidden constant

It isn't "forbidden" in any sensible way.

Therefore, that constant should be set in the garbage and the sooner is better.

You are proposing to put evidence in the garbage.
Science is not going to do that...

So, Einstien has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.
Latter on he had found that it was a severe mistake and therefore he eliminated that constant.

Yes.
And so Einstein recognised that we do not have a static universe.
It's expanding.
And your idea- that it is infinitely old, implies that it is static. I.e. that it's "the same as it always was" so, per Einstein, you are wrong.

What point did you think you were making?

That one more evidence why that constant shouldn't be used in Einstein formula.

It isn't.
Hubble's constant (measured  in1929) was not known when Einstein did his work published  in 1917.

I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infinite

You are still wrong.
The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded.

They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formula

OK, if it makes you happier, you can name it after this guy- whose work is based on Einsteins, and showed that you can't have a steady state universe without fudging it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann#Relativity

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44
So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.

He said that- or , at least, he's reported to have said it.

Which means he was wrong.
Either he was wrong the first time, or he was wrong the second time.
It's not possible from his work to find out which.

The facts are very clear to all of us - including to YOU
1. Einstein had first set his formula without  any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe

https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/17/einsteins-greatest-blunder-was-really-a-blunder
In this article we understand the history of that cosmologic constant.
Einstein has used it in order to solve the idea of static Universe.
"He proposed that there was an intrinsic energy to space itself, a cosmological constant, responsible for this. This cosmological constant would push back with exactly the force needed to counteract gravity on these large scales, and would lead to the Universe being static."
So, Einstein has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.

3. In order to support in the BBT idea, other scientists have used that cosmological constant as the Hubble constant.
Einstein had stated that it was his biggest mistake.

I hope that we all agree to those facts

Now this is my understanding:
Einstein didn't agree with the BBT as he believed in the idea of static Universe.
Therefore, when he had noticed that the science community is using his constant for to support the BBT - he was very upset and stated that it was his biggest mistake.

4. However there is one more stage in this story.
At older age, he considered to reuse that constant in order to support the idea of new created particles
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."

So, Einstein fully supported the understanding that new particles should be created as time goes on!!!
This idea contradicts the BBT and fully supports Theory D as "Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant".
Therefore - from now on we must agree on the following facts
1. Einstein didn't accept the BBT
2. I have full approval from Einstein to claim that new particles could be created in our Universe.

However, as I already know you quite well, you would reject those facts.

So are you going to prove the following statement from Einstein?

If the fact don't fit the theory - Chang the facts
https://www.quotesuniverse.com/quote/35

Could it be that he had used this idea in order to show his frustration from the BBT?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44
They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formula

OK, if it makes you happier, you can name it after this guy- whose work is based on Einsteins, and showed that you can't have a steady state universe without fudging it.

Yes Please
From now on - our scientists can't use Einstein name for nothing!
They can use his formula and change it as they wish, but they can't call it Einstein formula any more.

Actually, in one of the articles that I have found it was stated that our scientists are using today that constant for the dark energy. It was also stated that the impact of the dark energy constant is 70% in that formula.
So, if that is correct then it proves that our scientists are clearly not using the constant according to Einstein will.
In any case - our scientists can do whatever they wish - but please they can't call it Einstein formula any more.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44
I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infinite

You are still wrong.
The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded.

Sorry - you are wrong!!!
A surface has 2D.
However, our real space is 3D and ONLY 3D.
Hence, it is very clear that you can band 2D in a 3D and get a surface without end.
However, there is no way to band a 2D surface in a 2D surface in order to get it as unbounded surface.

Therefore, there is no way to band a 3D space in a 3D space, as there is no way to band a 2D surface in a 2D surface.
I hope that we also agree that there is no 4D space. Therefore, without a 4D space there is no way to band a 3D space!!!

Therefore, as long as our real space is based only on 3D (and there is no 4D space) there is no way to get unbounded Universe in a finite Universe.
Unbounded Universe in a real 3D means only - Infinite Universe!!!!

[evan_au]

1. Einstein had first set his formula without  any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe

Mathematically, Integration always produces a constant.
- Part of solving the integration is finding some way to identify the value of this constant.
- And it's true, defining the constant is usually the second part of solving the integration
- Physicists at the time thought the universe was static & eternal, so Einstein plugged in a finely-balanced value that could have made the universe static and eternal.

The general theory of relativity was published in 1915. The expansion of the universe was discovered by Hubble in 1929, so Einstein had no basis for assigning a different value to the constant.

3. In order to support in the BBT idea, other scientists have used that cosmological constant as the Hubble constant.

It was the Belgian priest & physicist Lemaitre who identified the possibility within Einstein's equations for a beginning to an expanding universe.
- As a Christian, he was not so tied to the idea of an eternal universe as most of his colleagues at the time.
- His hypothesis was later shown to be correct by Hubble's observations of distant galaxies - and that is when Einstein realized he had made a mistake in defining the constant.

You can have an expanding universe with a zero cosmological constant.
- After Hubble's observations, most astronomers just assumed the cosmological constant was zero.
- So you definitely don't use the Cosmological constant as Hubble's constant.

Today (after about the year 2000), the Cosmological Constant  has been used to model the changes in the Hubble "constant" over the life of the universe.

our scientists are clearly not using the constant according to Einstein will

Mathematics says there will be a constant (which may be zero).
- Einstein died in 1955.
- The accelerating expansion of the universe was discovered about 1990.
-So, clearly, Einstein could not assign a value to the cosmological constant that would account for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
- But what today's scientists are doing is entirely consistent with the mathematics that Einstein used.

responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded

This sounds like Hoyle's model of a steady-state universe, rather than anything espoused by Einstein.
Despite having named the Big Bang, Hoyle never believed in the Big Bang. He preferred to believe in an eternal universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang

I hope that we also agree that there is no 4D space.

Einstein showed that time adds another dimension to 3D space, such that measurements by different observers still make sense in a 4D spacetime.
- This does not hold true in a purely 3D space.
- String theorists see reasons to suppose that there may be 10 or more dimensions.

I suggest that you just get used to the 4 dimensions you can experience directly, without worrying about any more...

[Bored chemist]

However, our real space is 3D and ONLY 3D.

Plainly wrong, there are 4,
left and right,
forward and back
up and down and
time.

You can't say we should worship at the altar of Einstein, and then dismiss one of his greatest works.

The facts are very clear to all of us - including to YOU
1. Einstein had first set his formula without  any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe

You have that backwards. Here's what Wiki says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

"Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's confirmation of the expanding universe."

That constant which he abandoned is the thing he described as his greatest mistake.
He had introduced it as a fudge factor, to produce a static universe.
When he found out about Hubble's work, he realised that the constant wasn't needed.
That's when he abandoned it.

So, do you now see that you have completely misunderstood the Einstein episode?