[puppypower]

One problem we face, looking out at the universe, is the time delay between the energy signals and the matter that produced it. By the time the energy reaches us the matter is doing something different from the original time is gave off the signals. For example, if I sent a video image from Mars, there is a time delay before it reaches earth. When they finally see the image, it appears I was at my desk. However, in reality I left my desk to use the rest room, when the image reaches the earth. Those on the earth cannot be convinced that I left the room since the visual data does not show that. They need to work with what they appear to see.

In terms of Einstein's concept of relative reference, this is only valid for the visual signals we get,  It is not valid for the matter that created the signals. The matter is confined by the conservation of energy. If had a train and a man at the station they can appear to be in relative motion. This is true of the visual signals, but not for the matter since the energy balance is not the same in both situations. The train has more mass and more kinetic energy for the same relative motion. This is why we needed  to add dark matter and dark energy. The energy balance created by relative reference was not working out. It needed fudge.

Say we were at the start of the big bang. Since al the matter of the universe was made from her beginning materials, our position in space and time should overlap everything else at the beginning. The oldest observations already came and went since energy moves faster than matter. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!

One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo. The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last, which means it has echoed many time to give the impression of vast distances and time. This could also explain why these signals are not all in one spot even though we started with a singularity.

[Bored chemist]

This is why we needed  to add dark matter and dark energy.

Not really.

. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!

Quite easily.
Even if you take the simplistic model of an explosion with a "middle".
radiation from "on the far side of the middle" would take a long time to get here.
The real answer is that while matter can't  outpace light through space, space itself can expand, and that delays and red shifts the light.

One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo.

What did it reflect from?
God's shaving mirror?

The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last,

Which is another reason to abandon the idea.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

. Hubble Law

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:48:05
Hubble law is correct by 100%

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at speeds proportional to their distance."
So, if our scientists call it Hubble law, why I can't call it at the same name?

2. Extrapolation

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:35:51
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.

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.

Well, extrapolation might work only if you have clear information about the maximal size and shape of the Universe.
About 100 Years ago, our scientists have considered that we are living in a finite compact Universe. They were sure that Universe has a very limited size and bounded (with clear edge)
Therefore, it was quite clear why they have used the idea of extrapolation at that time (and got the BBT idea).
However, today we know that the Universe has no edge.
If today our Universe has no edge then also 1B years ago, 5 BY, 10BY or even 15 years ago it had no edge.
Theoretically, if we could go back in time and observe the Universe with our current technology, we would surly see that the farthest galaxy that we see today is closer.
However, we might see other furthest galaxies that we don't see them today any more.
Therefore, without clear knowledge about the current maximal size and shape of our universe and without understanding the correct current location of the furthest galaxy in our Universe - we can't set any sort of extrapolation.

There is also severe difference between small scale and large scale.
In the large scale we see that galaxies are moving away from us.
However, in local scale we clearly see that galaxies are moving in all directions.
For example - Andromeda is moving directly to the MY galaxy (while our galaxy cross the space at about 600Km/s).
It is expected that Andromeda should collide with the Milky way in about two billion years from now.
Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.
Therefore, how can we claim that all the galaxies were close together 14 Billion years ago?
Our scientists can claim that it is due to Gravity. However, the Milky Way and Andromeda are very massive galaxies, so it is not realistic that they would be affected by gravity of smaller galaxies.
If we discuss about gravity – let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?

Let me use one more example:
Let's assume that we look at ships as they cross the Atlantic Ocean.
Let's assume that we have no idea about the size of the ocean or the planet but we can measure the velocity and direction of each ship.
Based on that data and extrapolation we can try to estimate from where they are coming and to where they are going.
However, if we don't know the real size and shape of our planet, this data woun't helps us.
In the same token, the data about the direction and velocity of galaxies won't help us without clear information about the size and shape of the Universe!!!
As the Universe is unbounded then at any direction that we might look there is almost unlimited no of galaxies. We can consider it as unbounded rope with unbounded no of galaxies.
As we run the time back, we actually pull back that rope with its unlimited no. of galaxies.
So, how do we that if we go back to 14 BY ago, the length of this rope would be exactly zero?

We also need to understand that the galactic view that we see in our current location should be similar at any location in the Universe. That is correct also for a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
So, if we could jump over there we should see similar view as we see from our planet.
The nearby galaxies are moving in all direction at relatively low velocities (in the range of only few hundred Km per sec), while there are further galaxies in all directions and some of them are located 221 Gly away.
Therefore, theoretically we can jump again and again by 221 GLY in a direct line (each time to the furthest galaxy) without any end. Therefore, after 10 Jumps we can get to a galaxy that is located 2210 Gly away and carry a redshift of 130 with regards to our location
We can't see it any more from our planet as it is far away, but we might get its radiation as integrated "white noise radiation" in the CMBR.
Therefore, I would expect that the redshift of the CMBR (which is based on the radiation of billions over billions galaxies around us) would include wide spectrum of redshifts (while the strogest redshift is 1100).

After all of that information - it is our obligation to solve the enigma of the size and shape of the unbounded Universe including the issue of small scale before we try to make any sort of extrapolation.
 
3. Redshift:

Quote
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.

Redshift is all about velocity!!!
The redshift is based on Dopler effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
"The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source.[1] It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842."
So, when we see an object with a redshift - Its redshift is a signature for its velocity.
Hence, the redshift is the most important information that we can observe at each galaxy, object or radiation
"The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light is of great use in astronomy and results in either a so-called redshift or blueshift. It has been used to measure the speed at which stars and galaxies are approaching or receding from us; that is, their radial velocities."

[Bored chemist]

Redshift is all about velocity!!!
The redshift is based on Dopler effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

Perhaps we have finally reached the root of your lack of understanding.
You are looking at the wrong wiki page.
The right one is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
And that's why you are mistaken (as I have repeatedly pointed out) in thinking that the reshift is a linear function.

I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?

Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?

[puppypower]

This is why we needed  to add dark matter and dark energy.

Not really.

. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!

Quite easily.
Even if you take the simplistic model of an explosion with a "middle".
radiation from "on the far side of the middle" would take a long time to get here.
The real answer is that while matter can't  outpace light through space, space itself can expand, and that delays and red shifts the light.

One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo.

What did it reflect from?
God's shaving mirror?

The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last,

Which is another reason to abandon the idea.

Say we start with the BB singularity.  It represents all the matter and energy that will become our universe. Since everything is overlapping as a singularity, if we were part of it, we could see everything simultaneously. Since we are part of the singularity, there will also be echo because of the limits imposed by the singularity. It cannot be called as singularity and allow signals to leave. That would need to be called something else such as a leaky singularity.

The question becomes what was beyond the singularity. Was it empty space? The answer appears to be no, since empty space will make the singularity leaky. The other alternative, is beyond the singularity is the speed of light reference. The singularity is different from the speed of light  reference, since it contains the beginning of inertial space and time, and matter cannot go there so it stays contained. 

Energy moves at the speed of light. However, energy is not entirely in the speed of light reference.  It also has finite attributes in space and time; wavelength and frequency. These finite attributes do not exist in the speed of light reference, since at the speed of light, all measure of space and time become limiting and homogeneous. The speed of light reference, beyond the inertial singularity, will create a barrier and echo chamber for any andall inertial attributes.

[alancalverd]

Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?

It probably has, but what we observe is what was there then!

[Bored chemist]

Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?

It probably has, but what we observe is what was there then!

Nope, that doesn't work.
In an infinite amount of time- which is the fairy tale the OP tells- the light would have left long ago.

Say we start with the BB singularity. 

Do you understand that the CMBR is not the light from the "big bang"?
It is the light from the recombination event when the universe cooled down enough for hydrogen atoms to form.

...  the speed of light reference. ... the speed of light  reference,

Until you actually explain what that means- and you have been asked plenty of times, you should not clutter up other threads with it.
Stop hijacking this meaningless nonsense by Dave lev, with your meaningless nonsense.
Go start a thread called "this is what the speed of light reference means..." or something.

[Halc]

. Hubble Law

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:48:05
Hubble law is correct by 100%

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at speeds proportional to their distance."
So, if our scientists call it Hubble law, why I can't call it at the same name?

I’m not protesting what you call it.  What you just said contradicts these statements, which prompted my comment about your not knowing what that law says:

Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift

a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).

The law, as quoted from the wiki page there, make zero mention of redshift, so it does not in fact tell us about the ratio between distances to redshift.

About 100 Years ago, our scientists have considered that we are living in a finite compact Universe. They were sure that Universe has a very limited size and bounded (with clear edge)

Reference please.

However, today we know that the Universe has no edge.

Reference please.

Theoretically, if we could go back in time and observe the Universe with our current technology, we would surly see that the farthest galaxy that we see today is closer.

How far back?  Yesterday?  Sure, furthest galaxy X was closer.  However, we might see other furthest galaxies that we don't see them today any more.[/quote]Only if they cease emitting light, which seems very unlikely for a young galaxy. So nonsense.  More galaxies come into view with time, they don’t blink out.

It is expected that Andromeda should collide with the Milky way in about two billion years from now.

More than twice that time, but yes.

Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.

These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other. Extrapolating backwards thus must take into account this acceleration (and all other significant masses nearby) that you are ignoring here.

Therefore, how can we claim that all the galaxies were close together 14 Billion years ago?

What else do you suggest?  Something receding today at 0.4c was moving towards us last Tuesday?  How are you going to account for that kind of acceleration.

However, the Milky Way and Andromeda are very massive galaxies, so it is not realistic that they would be affected by gravity of smaller galaxies.

Nobody suggests otherwise, unless there’s a helluva lot of small galaxies, and they’re mostly on one side and not the other.

a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).

Again, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.

These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other.

This assumption could be the biggest mistake of the modern science.
We all know how gravity really works.

So let's verify the facts:
Andromeda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
Distance   2.54 ± 0.11 Mly
Andromeda Mass   (1.5±0.5)×10^12[9] M☉
Redshift   z = −0.001001(minus sign indicates blueshift)[1]
Helio radial velocity   −301 ± 1 km/s[2]
Milky Way -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
Mass   (0.8–1.5)×10^12 M☉
Velocity - The Milky Way as a whole is moving at a velocity of approximately 600 km per second with respect to extragalactic frames of reference.

Based on those facts:
How could it be that those two galaxies (with all their massive mass - about 1.5×10^12 M☉ each)  which are located so far away could have any sort of gravity impact on each other?
Don't you agree that if they should collide in about 2 BY then in the past they were much further away?
So, first we have to understand how far away they had been 5By, or 10 By ago.
So, why can't we assume that in the past the distance could be higher than 10Mly or even than 20 Mly
Then we can try to prove how from that ultra far location they could set any sort of mutual gravity attraction.
Please use the following formula for gravity:
F = G M1 M2 / R^2
How could it be that the milky way is crossing the space at 600Km/s due to this mutual gravity attraction?
How could it be that Andromeda is approaching the MY at a velocity of 300 Km/sec due to the mutual gravity attraction?
There is one more key issue:
If those supper massive galaxies have a mutual gravity attraction, this atraction should be increased as they come closer and closer.
Do we see any change in there velocities as they come closer?

You have totally ignore my message about Triangulum Galaxy:
i

let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?

This galaxy is much closer to Andromeda.
As it is moving away from Andromeda, then in the past it was much closer.
So, try to verify the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy 10 By ago
Then Try to use the gravity formula and find that 10 By ago, the gravity force between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy was much stronger than Andromeda to the Milky way.
This might be even valid for today data.
So, how could it be that due to relatively high mutual gravity attraction Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda while the Milky way with much less mutual gravity attraction is moving in the direction of Andromeda?

Sorry -
The following idea that : "These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other." is totally unrealistic.

Those galaxies are moving in space due to their momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction.":
As there is no friction in space, and as they are (almost) no affected by any sort of attraction by any nearby small galaxy, those massive galaxies keep their constant momentum in space
Just by chance Andromeda and MY are moving to each other!.

So, all the massive galaxies are crossing the space due to their momentum.
However, we can clearly say that the small galaxies are affected by the gravity force of the nearby big galaxies.

As Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda,  it is clear that in the past it was part of Andromeda.
Hence, this galaxy had been ejected from Andromeda.

Once you understand that key issue, you would understand how the Universe really works.

So, we must understand first how the Universe works in small scale and then try to find a solution for large scale.
Our science community ignores the small scale and therefore fails to understand how our universe really works.

[Bored chemist]

Dave, you keep missing this.

I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?

Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?

[evan_au]

Don't you agree that if they should collide in about 2 BY then in the past they were much further away?
So, first we have to understand how far away they had been 5By, or 10 By ago.
So, why can't we assume that in the past the distance could be higher than 10Mly or even than 20 Mly

The Milky Way and Andromeda are part of our Local Cluster of galaxies, which our bound together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

But each galaxy has its own "peculiar motion" (random velocity) - some will be away from us, and some will be towards us. It just so happens that Andromeda has a velocity that is towards the Milky Way Galaxy (us).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity#Cosmology

The expansion of the universe is so slight on the scale of a galaxy cluster that it will not disrupt the local cluster (not with the current rate of expansion).

Because these local galaxies are in orbit around each other, their average separation today is pretty much the same as it was 1 BYA or 5 BYA.

If those supper massive galaxies have a mutual gravity attraction, this atraction should be increased as they come closer and closer.
Do we see any change in there velocities as they come closer?

It was only in the 1920s that it became accepted that Andromeda was an "island universe", separate from our own galaxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Distinction_from_other_nebulae

So we have been observing Andromeda as a separate galaxy for about a century.
- Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxy will collide in about 5 BY. Their speed will increase as they get closer - say, in 2 billion years.
- But the change in velocity over the past century is miniscule, as the distance has hardly changed in the past century (as a percentage of the total distance).

There is another complication: We can measure the radial velocity quite accurately, but we can't measure the "sideways" velocity nearly as accurately.
- So while we are sure that Andromeda is heading towards us at the moment, we can't tell if it will hit us or miss us
- If it is a direct hit, almost all the stars will pass between each other, since both galaxies are mostly empty space. But clouds of hydrogen in each galaxy will collide with each other, which should produce a nice light show...
- Neither galaxy is a solid object, so even if there isn't a direct collision, the closer edges of the two galaxies will be distorted by their close approach.

People have tried to simulate what might happen. This one assumes an initial "miss", followed by several more direct collisions:

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Milky Way and Andromeda are part of our Local Cluster of galaxies, which our bound together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

Where do you see in that articale a confirmation for the idea that The Milky Way and Andromeda are bounded together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.
This is a pure imagination.
Both galaxies are moving in a direct line and at a constant velocity.
So, how can you claim for any sort of "orbiting their common barycenter"
Prove please it!

Please be aware that the total mass of the My and Andromeda is estimate at the range of  (0.8–1.5)×10^12 M☉.
So, they should act as some sort of binary star:
https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/021/s3.html
"In a binary system, two objects orbit about their common center of mass like this"
Do we really see that kind of orbiting?

But each galaxy has its own "peculiar motion" (random velocity) - some will be away from us, and some will be towards us. It just so happens that Andromeda has a velocity that is towards the Milky Way Galaxy (us).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity#Cosmology

That by itself proves that the Milky Way and Andromeda aren't bounded together by mutual gravitation, and aren't orbiting any kind of common barycenter.

The expansion of the universe is so slight on the scale of a galaxy cluster that it will not disrupt the local cluster (not with the current rate of expansion).

So far our scientists didn't see any sort of expansion in the space of the Universe.
All we see is an expansion of the galaxies and that all.
As the BBT is incorrect then the idea of expansion in space is also incorrect.

Because these local galaxies are in orbit around each other, their average separation today is pretty much the same as it was 1 BYA or 5 BYA.

If there average separation was the same as it was 1BYA or 5BYA than it also should be the same in the next 5 BY.
Our scientists claim that they are going to collide in about 2BY. Therefore, the estimation that the average separation was the same in the past is also imagination.
Please be aware that when you claim for Orbiting around

- Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxy will collide in about 5 BY. Their speed will increase as they get closer - say, in 2 billion years.

Sorry, if they orbiting around a center of mass, they shouldn't collide at all.

- But the change in velocity over the past century is miniscule, as the distance has hardly changed in the past century (as a percentage of the total distance).

In real orbiting system the objects should change their directions and the velocities.
As we don't see and change in the direction of those galaxies in the past century and as they are moving head to head - they aren't orbiting around any sort of center of mass.

If it is a direct hit, almost all the stars will pass between each other, since both galaxies are mostly empty space.

That message by itself proves that our scientists don't have even a basic clue how galaxies really work.
Do you know that for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside?
So, as the MW galaxy cross the space at 600 Km sec it coiled with almost unlimited no of stars in the open space.
If those stars could pass into the galaxy, why don't we see them?
Sorry, the gravity of the MW pushes any star and any galaxy that stands in its path.
Nothing can penetrate into the galaxy.
So, the MW and Andromeda are moving head to head due to their momentum and not due to any sort of orbital gravity force.
Therefore, as we go back in the past there would be located further and further away.
14 By ago, they were much further than 5 By ago.
Therefore, the idea that 14 BY ago all the galaxies/matter were at a singularity point is just unrealistic.
Andromeda proves that the BBT is imagination!

What is your advice about Triangulum Galaxy?

et's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?

Dave, you keep missing this.

I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?

Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?

Well, I have already informed you that I do not wish to continue the discussion with you.
However, as you ask so nicely and as I have already answered this issue, I feel that I should reply to your message with the following quote:

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.

So, it is all about the creation on new matter.


 

[Bored chemist]

So, it is all about the creation on new matter.

So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.
It would make more sense to ignore your idea, wouldn't it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, it is all about the creation on new matter.

So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.
It would make more sense to ignore your idea, wouldn't it?

No.
You don't have to argue with me.
Now you face Mr Einstein.
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
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, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!

[Bored chemist]

So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea

It's not that I think it is wrong.
It's that I can prove it is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.
Maths doesn't depend on observations.
So, unless you really don't think science has progressed in the last hundred years or so...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's not that I think it is wrong.
It's that I can prove it is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

What do you wish to prove with this nonsense?

The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.
Maths doesn't depend on observations.

How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation 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)"

Einstein is using his cosmological constant for the creation of new particles in order to overcome the conservation law.
Those new particles are created at the accretion disc of a Black hole.
The ratio between a particle to a Black hole is in less than  1/10000...100
Therefore, the cosmologic constant in this case is virtually zero.
However, our scientists are using the same cosmologic constant for a dark energy that is needed to set the acceleration in the space expansion of the Universe.
It is estimated that the dark energy ratio in the total mass/energy of the Universe is 70% while the real matter is only 4%.
So, if we compare the requested dark energy to a BH energy/mass it is clear that the ratio is 1* 100...000
Hence, the cosmological constant should be significantly high in order for the dark energy to bypass the conservation energy law. 
So, how do you dare to carry the conservation law for nothing?

So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.

Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?
Why you don't care that the dark energy is created out of nothing while it is 17.5 (70%/4%) times higher than the total real matter/mass in our whole Universe.
So, while the BBT imagination had delivered only the real matter (which represents only 4% of the total energy in our Universe), you and our scientists wish to believe that Einstein' cosmological constant should deliver 70% from that total energy.
There is one more key issue:
Our scientists claim that the space itself is increasing.
They have told us that even when the Universe was very small and highly concentrated the space expansion/inflation could overcome the Ultra gravity of that small universe.
Now they tell us that somehow a new imagination that is called Dark matter should set antigravity in order to accelerate the space expansion of the Universe.
So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?
If it is not affected, then the dark matter with its antigravity can't accelerate the space expansion.
Hence, you should set the dark matter in the garbage.
If it is affected - then 14 BY ago while the Universe was very small and dense with Ultra high gravity force - the expansion and the inflation couldn't work at all.
So, please try to find a solution for this contradiction.

The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.

Einstein is dead but his wisdom, knowledge and formulas are the base for our current understanding.
So, this dead scientist had offered us a living science.
Currently, our living scientists believe in a dead science.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.
Einstein had stated that the overall density of matter had to stay constant in an expanding Universe

Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)

Therefore - the density in our Universe MUST stay constant forever and ever. Hence, the CMBR of our current universe would stay the same forever and ever. That should be correct 100 By ago and 100 BY in the future.
Einstein had stated that the cosmological constant is responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expands

the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded

Therefore, new matter must be created in our Universe.

Who are you Mr BC to claim that Einstein is Wrong.
You and all of those BBT believers are wrong!!!
Shame on you!

[Bored chemist]

What do you wish to prove with this nonsense?

It's not nonsense; but you are too far down the DK  river to recognise that the problem is your lack of understanding.
What it proves is that mass/ energy is conserved.
So THE MATHS PROVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles:

It takes no "daring" to point out that someone was wrong. It just takes proof, and I have presented that. It is not my fault that you can not understand it.

Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?

I already answered that.
It is related to the asymmetry of the start of the universe.
Again, it's not my fault that you don't understand.

So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?

Yes.

and the inflation couldn't work at all.

You made that claim without evidence.
I shall dismiss it the same way.
You are wrong.

Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.

This is absurd.
You talk about "Einstein's greatest mistake"; then you present him as if he is infallible.

It's very simple.
The maths shows he was wrong.
Mass/ energy is conserved.
Your idea is impossible.

It's not that I am saying that Einstein is wrong. Nobody cares about my opinion or yours.
The universe is saying he is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In the following article from Harvard it is stated:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
"No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? "
So, you and the 10,000 BBT scientists claim that they know – however, you all clearly don't know.
Einstein knew the answer for that.
Unfortunately you all reject his clear explanation.

Therefore, I would like to highlight several Key contradictions in the BBT with regards to the energy or "Energy conservation"

Let's try to understand the total energies in our Universe based on the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
"the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 69% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contributes 26% and 5%, respectively,"
Hence:
Ordinary (baryonic) matter contributes - 5%
Dark matter contributes - 26%
Dark energy contributes - 69%

So, if we compare the Dark matter/energy to the ordinary matter we get the following:
Ordinary matter = 1 OM
Dark Matter = 26/5 = 5.2 * OM
Dark Energy = 69/5 = 13.8 * OM

1. Ordinary Matter - OM
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4186.pdf
"The origin of matter remains one of the great mysteries in physics"
The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since this does not seem to have been the case, it is likely some physical laws must have acted differently or did not exist for matter and antimatter.
So, our scientists claim that "The origin of the Ordinary matter remains one of the great mysteries in physics"
That Ordinary matter had been delivered out of nothing and free of charge at the Moment of the bang that took place 14By ago.
At that time more than 99.9..9 of the new created particles pair at the Big bang moment have eliminated each other due to the idea that one is matter and the other is antimatter.
So, the OM (Ordinary matter) in the entire Universe represents just the 0.00..1 from the energy at the first moment of the Big Bang.
Therefore - it is clear that the energy that was needed for the BBT to create the whole Ordinary matter in our entire Universe was bigger by 10...0 times from the total energy in that OM.
I wonder how any scientist could accept this idea?
However, as it is free of charge then our scientists has no problem with that

2. Dark Matter = 26/5 = 5.2 * OM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/05/22/astroquizzical-dark-matter-formed/?sh=4d0a67a354dd
if dark matter was present so early in the Universe, it probably was formed in the big bang. At the very least, it couldn’t have been formed later,"
So, the dark matter had been created at the Big Bang moment.
Therefore, we can claim that at the Big Bang the total energy/gravity in the infinite compact Universe is equal to
OM + Dark Matter = 1 OM + 5.2OM = 6.2OM
BC claims that the expansion is affected by Gravity:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46
So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?

Yes.

So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?
If dark energy should accelerate the expansion in space while it represents antigravity, how could it be that a gravity of 6.2 OM that are concentrated at infinite compact early Universe couldn't prevent the expansion?
This is one more  key contradiction in the BBT.

3. Dark Energy = 69/5 = 13.8 * OM
BC claims that it is due to asymmetry of the start of the universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46
Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?

I already answered that.
It is related to the asymmetry of the start of the universe.

However, the asymmetry issue is all about matter and antimatter.
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem
"The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter."

So, how that asymmetry could create any sort of dark energy?
How could it be that the dark energy is located exactly at the correct locations in the Universe inorder to set the uniform accelaration expansion in space.

In any case, you wish to believe that at the Big Bang moment a total energy of OM + Dark matter which represents a gravity of 6.2 OM had been set together with a Dark energy which represents antigravity energy of 13.8 OM comes for free, while you ignore the the 13.8OM antigravity of the dark energy is significantly higher than the OM and even from the OM + dark matter.
So, if there was dark energy at the Early Universe with its ultra antigravity - Not even a single galaxy or a single star could be created.

Sorry.
I prefer to stay with Einstein theory.

Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.
Einstein had stated that the overall density of matter had to stay constant in an expanding Universe
Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant
Therefore - the density in our Universe MUST stay constant forever and ever. Hence, the CMBR of our current universe would stay the same forever and ever. That should be correct 100 By ago and 100 BY in the future.
Einstein had stated that the cosmological constant is responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expands
The constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded.

Therefore, based on Einstein new matter must be created in our Universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles:

It takes no "daring" to point out that someone was wrong. It just takes proof, and I have presented that. It is not my fault that you cannot understand it.

So, Einstein is just "someone" for you and you also claim that he is wrong.

So THE MATHS PROVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

The math that our scientists are using is based on Einstein formula and on its cosmological constant.
They are using that constant to confirm the dark energy which is equal in its energy to 13.8 OM.
However, when Einstein by himself wish to use that constant for the creation of new particles (while each particle represents 0.000....00001% of OM energy - then you raise the energy conservation flag and claim that Einstein is wrong.

Sorry - This isn't science.
You take the whole energy of the Universe for free, add the dark matter and the dark energy exactly at the correct locations, at the correct densities and at the requested time frame in order to get the requested results.
So, during the era of recombination, the dark energy might be a big problem - therefore you ignore it.
You only call for its help 5 By ago.
This isn't science - this is a dream.
Einstein theory and wisdom represents the real meaning of real science.
He had stated that the BBT is wrong, therefore the BBT is wrong.
Based on Einstein Theory: New particles are created at the accretion disc of the BH with our without your confirmation.

I have no intention to argue with you about the New created particles process as it based on Einstein wisdom & Theory.

[Bored chemist]

So, you and the 10,000 BBT scientists

It's more like 8,000,000 scientists on one side and you on the other.
Yet you think you are right...
Do you see why we are laughing at you?

Einstein knew the answer for that.

No he didn't. He had an opinion, but that's all.

Unfortunately you all reject his clear explanation.

Because we have proven that it is wrong. Once again, we are talking about tegh observation that, to every complex problem there is a solution which is simple obvious... and wrong.

Therefore, I would like to highlight several Key contradictions in the BBT with regards to the energy or "Energy conservation"

You are only highlighting your own misunderstanding.

The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

Exactly the same is true of any idea of the continuous creation of matter.
You have just destroyed your own idea.
It is unfortunate that you lack the understanding to recognise this (even though it has been made clear to you before).

So, how that asymmetry could create any sort of dark energy?

Nobody ever said it did.
They are two different problems.
We don't really know where darke energy came from. We don't know why there is more matter than antimatter.

It would be better if you understood the theory you are arguing against but- as usual- your D K syndrome kicks in and you presume that you are better than the rest of the world and magically do not need to learn.

At that time more than 99.9..9 of the new created particles pair at the Big bang moment have eliminated each other due to the idea that one is matter and the other is antimatter.
So, the OM (Ordinary matter) in the entire Universe represents just the 0.00..1 from the energy at the first moment of the Big Bang.

We don't know that.
It is possible that the universe only created normal matter.
Once you accept that the symmetry must have been broken you have to accept that you don't know how severely broken it was.
Also, if "most" of the universe was destroyed in the way you suggest, then it must have been converted to energy- an unimaginably large amount of energy.
It would mean that the universe would have been extraordinarily hot. Every single particle would have enough energy to raise it to very near the speed of light.

Why is matter still here?
Where has that energy gone?

So we can certainly question the idea that most of the early universe was annihilated.
Or we can say that's what kicked off the expansion of the universe which we can still see today.

BC claims that it is due to asymmetry of the start of the universe.

No I don't.
But again, you aren't well enough informed to understand what I said, but you are deluded enough about your ability that you think you understand.

However, the asymmetry issue is all about matter and antimatter.

No, that's a separate issue (it also kills your idea,but it's a different death).
The symmetry which kills your idea is about time.
But you don't understand it and dismissed it as nonsense.
Here it is again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

It proves, mathematically, that the creation of mass/ energy is impossible in our universe.

The math that our scientists are using is based on Einstein formula

No.
The maths that science is relying on is based on the work of Emmy Noether.
It was written before Einstein's work was published.
And if he had read (and understood) it, he would have realised that it proved that he was wrong.

I have no intention to argue with you about the New created particles process as it based on Einstein wisdom & Theory.

Two problems; firstly it doesn't solve the matter/ antimatter problem.
Secondly, it only works until the BH evaporates. At that point all it has done is turn the mass of the BH into other particles and antiparticles (and radiation).
That process then stops because there is no longer a BH there.
So it can not possibly be the source of matter creation in the universe.


But that's science and you are going to stick with pathetically misplaced hero worship like this.

He had stated that the BBT is wrong, therefore the BBT is wrong.

[Halc]

I notice that you have zero confidence in your own ideas.  If anybody actually gets too close to a direct contradiction, you panic and go off on an assertion rant rather than address the inconsistency identified.
So my post 67 seemed to be one of these, any your reply 68 (a tiny bit of which is below) is one of those rants, used as a diversion to steer the conversation away from the obvious contradiction in your own assertions.

a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).

Yet again, where (approximately is fine) do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?

You will evade this answer again, because it results in a direct contradiction with your assertions.


A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it.  That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda.  But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.

Velocity - The Milky Way as a whole is moving at a velocity of approximately 600 km per second with respect to extragalactic frames of reference.

Yes, but not not towards Andnromeda.

Based on those facts:
How could it be that those two galaxies (with all their massive mass - about 1.5×10^12 M☉ each)  which are located so far away could have any sort of gravity impact on each other?[/quote]They’re quite close (only 2.5 MLY away), and gravity has no limit to its impact. The 630 km/sec is due to much more distant gravitational masses (Virgo, 65 MLY away), the great attractor (250 MLY) and most importantly, the Shapley attractor, 250 MLY away.

How could it be that Andromeda is approaching the MY at a velocity of 300 Km/sec due to the mutual gravity attraction?

It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much.

I found an incredible map of all the major galaxies under the general influence of the Virgo supercluster. Instead of the usual 2D map you find, this one is fully 4D. You can see the curved path of the Milky way, and Andromeda coming in from the side a ways and cutting close behind us.  It will miss on its first pass, with the merger not completing for another 20-30 billion years.

https://earthsky.org/space/detailed-map-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster
Click on the 4D map at the top and play with it.  I’ve never seen better. You can rotate and zoom it.

What is missing is all the components that made up the various galaxies.  No mergers are depicted. It treats each known galaxy as a point mass. Hence there not being any initial galaxies near Virgo (the red mass) since they’ve since been absorbed and we don’t know about them today.
We’re the yellow galaxy, and Andromeda is the green one. Don’t know what the purple one represents.

In the following article from Harvard it is stated:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
"No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from?”

These questions seem to presume the very naive bias that the universe is an object created in time, rather than time being part of it. This unnamed author asks such questions seeming to steer the reader away from those biases and to answers that don’t make those assumptions, but you don’t quote that part I see.

“How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? "

Again, the question is asked and answered, but you omit that part. Eternal inflation theory answers this question, and the observation is strong evidence for the theory.
The article is a sort of base cosmology 101 preface that gets into no meat at all.