[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Thanks for your excellent explanation.

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.

So, the Cosmological constant is used just for the acceleration in the expansion as discovered in 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
The accelerating expansion of the universe is the observation that the expansion of the universe is such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time.
However, as Einstein have stated that this cosmological constant is his biggest mistake, then I still claim that we shouldn't use it.
Therefore, the outcome due to Einstein formula without that constant is that there is no acceleration in the expansion of the galaxies in our Universe.
However, our scientists insist that there is acceleration:
So, let's look at the following image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#/media/File:Lambda-Cold_Dark_Matter,_Accelerated_Expansion_of_the_Universe,_Big_Bang-Inflation.jpg
If I understand it correctly, the acceleration is due to the limited age of the Universe which is 13.7 BY.
As based on Einstein formula (without the constant) there is no room for acceleration, why can't we just use that observation to understand the real size of our Universe?
So, if based on Hubble law we clearly see a correlation between redshift and distance, why can't we just take the higher redshift to a longer distance?
In other words - if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?

I have one more question:
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?

Quote
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

As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new partials creation that is OK with me.

Quote
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 space-time.
- This does not hold true in a purely 3D space.
- String theorists see reasons to suppose that there may be 10 or more dimensions.

Thanks
The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space
"In physics and mathematics, a sequence of n numbers can be understood as a location in n-dimensional space. When n = 3, the set of all such locations is called three-dimensional Euclidean space (or simply Euclidean space when the context is clear). It is commonly represented by the symbol ℝ3.[1][2] This serves as a three-parameter model of the physical universe (that is, the spatial part, without considering time), in which all known matter exists."

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

Well, we can always add one more mathematical dimension.
If we add time, it would be called as Space-time.
It will give us excellent mathematical tool. However, it won't add one more dimension in our real Euclidean space.
I know that Einstein had also try to understand the impact of 5D in his mathematical calculation.
So, theoretically, we can add unlimited dimensions as we wish.
However, our real universe is only based on three-dimensional Euclidean space which should go up the infinity.

[evan_au]

Einstein formula without that constant

Mathematically, the constant is present.

But mathematically, it's value may be zero (if that value is supported by the observational evidence).

the outcome due to Einstein formula without that constant is that there is no acceleration in the expansion of the galaxies in our Universe

Not quite.

With the Cosmological Constant = 0, there is a force on the expanding universe which produces a deceleration (which is a form of acceleration, just a negative one...).
- In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring this deceleration
- Both teams were surprised to see that in fact there was an acceleration
- The observational evidence showed that the assumption that "the cosmological constant = 0" was wrong (ie the hypothesis that had held sway for the previous 50 years had to be updated)
- If new, contradictory evidence appears, you need to reconsider your assumptions - that's just good science (it would make for better politics too...)

More recent, more extensive surveys suggest that a deceleration was present up to about 5 billion years after the big bang, but acceleration dominates today.

if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?

If you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D spacetime
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)

But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design

I have one more question:
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?

The Hubble constant only applies on very large scales - bigger than a galaxy, and bigger than a cluster of galaxies.

So the expansion of the universe has no observable effect at the level of a galaxy which is strongly bound by its own gravitation.

(Unless the "Big Rip" hypothesis turns out to be true - this would eventually pull apart galaxies, the Solar System, the Earth and our atoms. It is currently considered plausible, but has no direct measurements to support it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip) 

As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new particals creation that is OK with me.

Einstein was very careful to ensure conservation of energy in his theory of Relativity. He would not have approved of matter suddenly appearing; after all, Einstein was the one who originated the iconic E=mc².

Hoyle , however, was willing to sacrifice conservation of energy to maintain the idea of an eternal universe.

So I think Hoyle & Einstein differed greatly on this.
- Hoyle's steady state theory is generally seen as a "last gasp" for the eternal universe.
- Einstein was convinced that the universe had a compact start as soon as he saw Hubble's experimental results (it wasn't actually called a Big Bang until Hoyle gave it that name in 1949).

The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean space

Except where it isn't, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

There are black holes in our universe, and things get really twisted inside a black hole's event horizon.
- No matter how far you travel in a straight line, you don't exit the event horizon.
- And yet the event horizon may only be 10km across (when measured from the outside).
- That is definitely not a 3D Euclidean space!
- It's a bit like Dr Who's Tardis - bigger on the inside than the outside!

[Bored chemist]

However, our scientists insist that there is have measured the acceleration:

Fixed that for you.

[Bored chemist]

In other words - if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?

Because that's not what the measurements of red shift and distance tell us.
You can't ignore the evidence just because you don't like it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Evan_au
Many thanks for your clear explanations.
I do appreciate all your efforts

Quote
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?

If you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D space-time
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)

Thanks!!!
Although - I still claim that there is no 4D space...

But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design

Well, it is all about the current Theory.
Based on the BBT, the age of the Universe is only 13.8 BY
Therefore - you claim about "where they were when they emitted the light that we see now"
If we chose a different theory - then we can overcome this limitation.
Therefore, as long as we see our universe through the BBT filter, then we surly have several key obstacles.

Because that's not what the measurements of red shift and distance tell us.

No!!!
You have already confirmed that the Hubble law is based on relatively short distance.(In the range of MPC).
Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?
In any case - it is very clear to me that we must accept the Hubble law and accept the idea that:
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY a redshift of 2 represents a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 represents a distance of 60 BLY.
Therefore - the expansion is fixed at any distance!!!

With the Cosmological Constant = 0, there is a force on the expanding universe which produces a deceleration (which is a form of acceleration, just a negative one...).
- In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring this deceleration
- Both teams were surprised to see that in fact there was an acceleration
- The observational evidence showed that the assumption that "the cosmological constant = 0" was wrong (ie the hypothesis that had held sway for the previous 50 years had to be updated)
- If new, contradictory evidence appears, you need to reconsider your assumptions - that's just good science (it would make for better politics too...)

More recent, more extensive surveys suggest that a deceleration was present up to about 5 billion years after the big bang, but acceleration dominates today.

Wow.
Thanks for your breakthrough information!!!
So, if I understand you correctly, based on Einstein formula (while the cosmological constant=0), the Universe had to "decelerated' its expansion.
Therefore, "In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring that deceleration".
However, as they have discovered that the Universe is actually accelerated - why our science community didn't stop for one moment and try to find better understanding for this unexpected discovery?
Why instead of believing in Einstein math, they have changed the Math to meet the BBT theory?
Remember the message from Einstein:
if

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

So, it was expected that our scientists would stop and try to find the error in their theory.
Instead they have reused that cosmological constant.
This was a severe mistake.

Therefore, I still claim that if based on Einstein formula  the Universe has to  decelerated - then the Universe must decelerated.
It is very clear to me that there is no decelerated or accelerated in the expansion.
The expansion in our Universe is fixed!
Therefore, our Job it to find the theory which could explain why a Universe that should decelerate its expansion doesn't obey to Einstein Math and keep on at the same fixed expansion (again - without the BBT filter)

Quote
I have one more question:
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?

The Hubble constant only applies on very large scales - bigger than a galaxy, and bigger than a cluster of galaxies.

So the expansion of the universe has no observable effect at the level of a galaxy which is strongly bound by its own gravitation.

(Unless the "Big Rip" hypothesis turns out to be true - this would eventually pull apart galaxies, the Solar System, the Earth and our atoms. It is currently considered plausible, but has no direct measurements to support it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip)

Sorry, I don't understand from your answer if we use Einstein formula on the expansion on galaxies or expansion on space.
Please offer a direct answer.

Quote
As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new partials creation that is OK with me.

Einstein was very careful to ensure conservation of energy in his theory of Relativity. He would not have approved of matter suddenly appearing; after all, Einstein was the one who originated the iconic E=mc2.

Hoyle , however, was willing to sacrifice conservation of energy to maintain the idea of an eternal universe.

So I think Hoyle & Einstein differed greatly on this.
- Hoyle's steady state theory is generally seen as a "last gasp" for the eternal universe.
- Einstein was convinced that the universe had a compact start as soon as he saw Hubble's experimental results (it wasn't actually called a Big Bang until Hoyle gave it that name in 1949).

I have offered a clear indication that at older age Einstein did believe in new particles creation:

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".

Quote
The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean space
Except where it isn't, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

There are black holes in our universe, and things get really twisted inside a black hole's event horizon.
- No matter how far you travel in a straight line, you don't exit the event horizon.
- And yet the event horizon may only be 10km across (when measured from the outside).
- That is definitely not a 3D Euclidean space!
- It's a bit like Dr Who's Tardis - bigger on the inside than the outside!

I fully agree that in some extreme conditions there could be banding in space (as BHs).
However, that banding works locally.
If you believe that the whole Universe is a one big BH than we could consider to use of BH formulas also for the Universe.
However, we clearly know that this isn't the case.
Therefore, at a very specific areas in the infinite space we should find local bending due to very high gravity force, but in the open infinite Universe outside the BHs there is no banding in the 3D space.
Hence - our infinite Universe must be a 3D space.

[Bored chemist]

You have already confirmed that the Hubble law is based on relatively short distance.

No, I have not.
But I have asked you how, in an homogeneous model of the universe it would change with distance.

Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?

We can measure it out to about 130 million light years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817

And to about 1.7 billion light years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_150101B


So your claim is wrong, and your claim that I agreed with it is wrong.

Why do you have to make all these false claims?

[Bored chemist]

Thanks for your breakthrough information!!!

If it was a breakthrough, it was thirty years ago.
You claim to understand the physics, but you keep being forced to admit that you didn't even know what the physics is.

You keep massively screwing up

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:16:10
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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:38:43
Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?

We can measure it out to about 130 million light years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
And to about 1.7 billion light years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_150101B

So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLY.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
GRB 150101B is a gamma-ray burst (GRB) that was detected on 1 January 2015
The GRB was determined to be 1.7 billion light-years (0.52 Gpc) from Earth
Redshift   ?? 0.093[4]

So, with a redshift of  0.093 or about 0.1 this GBR is located at a distance of 1.7Bly
Therefore, based on Hubble law, redshift 1 should indicate a distance of 17 BLY while redshift 10 should be 170BLY.
How can you prove that there shouldn't be a correlation between redshift to distance??

You claim to understand the physics, but you keep being forced to admit that you didn't even know what the physics is.

BC
It is very clear to me that you have one mission - to stop any idea which contradicts the BBT
Therefore, you do whatever it takes to confuse me.
I have already presented your tactics.
You just west our time for nothing.
Let me discuss with other people that are willing to share real science with me.
Please - stay away from my threads. I do not wish to continue the discussion with You.

[Halc]

if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?

If you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D spacetime
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)

I know of no coordinate system that puts an object with redshift 10 at 60 BLY away. Such a distant object is simply outside the visible universe and thus cannot be seen at all.

The distance to an object is very dependent on how the distance is measured. Without specification of how the distance is measured, the figure is essentially meaningless.  A galaxy with redshift 10 might be said to be 30 BLY away (current proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time).  There is no simple algebraic formula to convert redshift to distance.  I get mine from graphs that plot the relationship from various solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light[
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design

I disagree with the relevance of local particle speeds when talking about recession rates.  The speed and energy of a proton in the LHC is expressed using a Minkowski coordinate system in which velocities add the relativistic way, and no proton can move at >= c.  Such a coordinate system is completely misrepresentative of the large scale geometry of the universe where change in proper separation of objects over time (not to be confused with regular velocity, despite the similar units) is very much observed at rate far in excess of c.

So if we’re talking about “where they were when they emitted the light”, again using the coordinate system of past proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time, we find that distance actually decreases beyond a certain value of redshift (about 1.85).  So for example, light we see today redshifted by 2 was probably emitted about 5.6 BLY from here (proper distance at constant cosmological time), but light from the galaxy with redshift 11 (like GN-z11) was emitted from about half that distance away at the time.  The difference is measuring proper distance to that galaxy now vs at the time of emission.

So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLY

No website said that.  The maximum distance that we can measure depends on how you do the measurement.  I mean, what's the distance between London and Paris?  Has anybody ever actually stretched a tape measure between the two?  You can't see one from the other, so shining a light and timing the round trip doesnt work either.  So what method are we using to measure this theoretical 'max distance'?  The answer depends on that.

I contend that since no light that has ever been 6 BLY away has ever reached us, that seems to be a ceiling on max distance.  Anything beyond that is necessarily extrapolation.

[Bored chemist]

So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLY.

No
At best, you might say the furthest we have measured  SO FAR is 1.7 billion light years.
But the point is that the Hubble law still works.
And you have yet to address the idea that if it works here, why shouldn't it work "far away"?

How can you prove that there shouldn't be a correlation between redshift to distance??

I'm not trying to.
We use redshift (among other things) to measure distance.
We can only do that because there is a correlation.
It's not a linear correlation.
Do you still not understand that?

BC
It is very clear to me that you have one mission

It may be "clear" to you, but it is wrong.
You have invented it.

Therefore, you do whatever it takes to confuse me.

I just keep pointing out facts.
What confuses you is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I have already presented your tactics.

No
You have invented some sort of tactic, and pretended that it has anything to do with me.

You are simply wrong, but refuse to accept it.
.

Let me discuss with other people that are willing to share real science with me.

Nobody on this site is agreeing with you.
That's because we do science, and you make up nonsense.

Please - stay away from my threads. I do not wish to continue the discussion with You.

No
When you signed up to the site you agreed to discuss things.
The fact that it takes you months to answer a question means that you lied when you did that.

if you want to set up a website where everybody but me is invited that's fine by me .
But, on this site, you don't get to decide what and where I post.

If you don't like it, do us all a favour and leave.

Seriously, why do you think that nobody here agrees with your ideas?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I know of no coordinate system that puts an object with redshift 10 at 60 BLY away. Such a distant object is simply outside the visible universe and thus cannot be seen at all.

The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.
Do you confirm that an object with a redshift of 0.1 is really located at 1.7 BLY?
If you accept the Hubble law that
V(velocity)= H0 (Hubble constant) * D(distance)
So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?
Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.
Hence, don't you agree that without the BBT, the distance to an object with redshift 1 should be 10 times the distance to an object with redshift 0.1.

[Bored chemist]

The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.

No, odd as it may seem to to you, it's based on what we can seen.
We really can only see so far.
This is at odds with your claim.

[evan_au]

The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.

You have it backwards.

The BBT understanding is based on the Visible Universe.

If you believe that the whole Universe is a one big BH than we could consider to use of BH formulas also for the Universe.
However, we clearly know that this isn't the case.

With what we know of Hubble's law, the universe started off in a very compact state.

With this much mass in such a small space, it definitely would have formed a black hole.

Note: This is not based on the Visible Universe, because with present techniques, we can't directly image events earlier than the CMBR.
- However, scientists have analyzed ripples in the CMBR to extrapolate events which occurred earlier in the universe.
- And the conditions for black hole formation are certainly present.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

With what we know of Hubble's law, the universe started off in a very compact state.

This isn't fully correct
Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:

V (velocity) = H0 * D

While

V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)

That's all

However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0":

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."

This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.

We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.

So, all I'm asking is to unleash ourselves from that wrong extrapolation and try to set the facts in front of our Eyes.

Let's focus only on real observation and real science formulas as:
Hubble Law
Einstein formulas (without the cosmological constant)
Redshift & Doppler effect.
Any other real science formula.
Eliminate any understanding from that wrong extrapolation (or the BBT filter).
Real data from our visible Universe.

Once we do so, we would be able to find the simple solution for our Universe.

Are you ready for that???

[Bored chemist]

What we know is that all the stuff we see is moving away from us.
Since "new stuff" can not be made and we can still see stuff, it can not have existed forever.
Because, if it had, it would all have gone away by now.

That's the important bit.
And you seem not to understand it.

The fact that we can use observations and maths to show that the universe is 14 billion years old is just a deduction about how long "forever" would need to be.

The extrapolation doesn't change the fundamental observation.
The universe is expanding and the expansion must have started some time.

If you think that is wrong, then explain why- without breaking the conservation laws.

[Bored chemist]

This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end. what we actually observe in the real world.

That's your problem.
You are arguing that a fact- confirmed by countless measurements and many people and groups- is wrong.

And you are claiming that your idea- which breaks the laws of physics - is right.
Do you see why nobody agrees with you?

[Halc]

The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.

OK

Do you confirm that an object with a redshift of 0.1 is really located at 1.7 BLY?

No.  There is no correlation between distance and redshift at all outside of the 'BBT filter'.  Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.

If you accept the Hubble law that

We do not have a Hubble law.  We discarded BBT remember? You must discard any laws that come from it.

So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?

I suppose if you fall back to Newtonian mechanics falsified 150 years ago, you might get a linear relation like that. But now you very much have a universe that does not correspond to the one we observe.

Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.

Nope. You said 10*V1, which is not a distance. There's no Hubble law in your no-BBT universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:51:45
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.

OK

Thanks

Quote
If you accept the Hubble law that

We do not have a Hubble law.  We discarded BBT remember? You must discard any laws that come from it.

Hubble law is correct by 100%
I have stated that only the extrapolation is incorrect:

However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0":

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."

This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.
We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.

I wonder which "scientist" had confirmed that kind of wrong calculation?

In any case as Hubble law is correct, than his following formulas are correct:

Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:
V (velocity) = H0 * D
While
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)
That's all

Therefore:
V = Z c = H0 D
D = Z c / H0
Therefore, there is direct relationship between D (distance) to Z (redshift)
Hence, if redshift 0.1 represents distance of 1.7 BLY, then by definition redshift of 1 represents a distance of 17 BLY.

There is no correlation between distance and redshift at all outside of the 'BBT filter'.

Yes there is full linear relation between distances to redshift due to Hubble law as this law is correct.
The BBT filter is based on incorrect assumption of "extrapolation"
That extrapolation and the BBT understanding that the age of the Universe at t=0 is 14 BY should be set in the garbage.

 

Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.

As that understanding is due to BBT, then this whole issue should join the BBT at the garbage.

Quote
So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?
I suppose if you fall back to Newtonian mechanics falsified 150 years ago, you might get a linear relation like that.

I have proved that even by Hubble law there is a linear relation between Redshift to distance to velocity.

But now you very much have a universe that does not correspond to the one we observe.

it is all due to the severe mistake of the extrapolation.
Shut down the extrapolation/BBT and you get back that linear relation!!!

Quote
Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.
Nope. You said 10*V1, which is not a distance. There's no Hubble law in your no-BBT universe.

As I have stated - Hubble law is 100% correct and valid in any Universe.
Therefore, by increasing the redshift by 10, we increase the velocity by 10 and therefore, we increase the distance by 10.
A galaxy with a redshift of 13 should be located at a distance of:
13 * 17GLY = 221 GLY

With regards to the CMBR
The redshift of the CMBR is 1100
Therefore, we get the CMBR from a minimal sphere which its radius is about:
1100 * 1.7 G = 1,870 GLY = 1.87 Trillion LY
That is the minimal size of the Universe which sets the main impact of the CMBR in our universe.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to have missed this bit.

What we know is that all the stuff we see is moving away from us.
Since "new stuff" can not be made and we can still see stuff, it can not have existed forever.
Because, if it had, it would all have gone away by now.

That's the important bit.
And you seem not to understand it.

The fact that we can use observations and maths to show that the universe is 14 billion years old is just a deduction about how long "forever" would need to be.

The extrapolation doesn't change the fundamental observation.
The universe is expanding and the expansion must have started some time.

If you think that is wrong, then explain why- without breaking the conservation laws.

[Halc]

Hubble law is correct by 100%

You seem unaware of what that law is.
Kindly inform us, with reference.

I have stated that only the extrapolation is incorrect

The law is an extrapolation, not a law about what is observered, but one about (given a recession velocity) where a galaxy actually is now, not where it appears.

However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0"

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."

That's the simplest arithmetic.  If two objects are increasing their separation at a rate of 10 parsecs per century and are currently 1.4 billion parsecs apart, then, barring significant acceleration, they were very close to each other 140 million centuries ago. The whole theory hangs on that simple relation.

This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.
We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.

Yes, I notice anything that makes sense gets thrown in the garbage with you. We've come to expect it.

Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:
V (velocity) = H0 * D

Funny, but I see no mention of redshift in that.

While
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)

Reference please.  This only works in Newtonian physics.  Special relativity gives an entirely different relation that has been verified in the lab, and even SR is not applicable to cosmological scales since the universe is not Minkowskian. The cosmological relation between V and Z derives from various solutions to Einstein's field equations.  I use the charts published, and which I've posted before.  The v=cz line is nowhere near reality except at very low speeds where Newtonian mechanics is a simple approximation.

The relation between V and D (distance) is also not linear until the extrapolation (which you deny above) is done. The empirical numbers tell a different story, since objects with sufficiently fast recession rates appear closer than objects with slower recession rates. This is exactly as the model predicts.
 

Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.

As that understanding is due to BBT, then this whole issue should join the BBT at the garbage.

No. That understanding is due to GR theory, not BBT.

As I have stated - Hubble law is 100% correct and valid in any Universe.
...
A galaxy with a redshift of 13 should be located at a distance of:
13 * 17GLY = 221 GLY

Where was that galaxy 14 billion years ago then?

With regards to the CMBR
The redshift of the CMBR is 1100
Therefore, we get the CMBR from a minimal sphere which its radius is about:
1100 * 1.7 G = 1,870 GLY = 1.87 Trillion LY

How would we see it at all with 1.87 trillion light years of stars and other matter in the way?  I know you deny basic stellar dynamics where stars actually consume fuel and burn themselves out after a few millions to billions of years, so I'll skip the bit about why there's any stars left at all.