[Halc]

He's talking about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

There's no mention at all on that page of 'speed of light', velocity, or 50 billion anything.
Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different things in different units, whether you're talking about inflation or today's expansion.

[Bored chemist]

Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different things

He's unlikely to be right about either.

[Bored chemist]

Also : Doh!
posted wrong link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#/media/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg
History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big Bang

[Halc]

History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big Bang

Wikipedia no less posts a statement that unqualified. Calling inflation faster than light is like calling 200 watts faster than 6 meters. Congrats on finding a pop source making the mistake I'm pointing out.

The inflation epoch increased the size of what makes up today's visible universe from <not much> to about the size of a marble in a small fraction of a second.  The radius of the marble (not of the universe) thus increased from negligible to say a cm in far less time that it takes light to travel that cm, so the surface of that expanding sphere was (and still very much is) increasing its separation from the arbitrary center point at a speed faster than light.  That's not an expansion rate, but a recession rate of a specific location relative to us. That recession rate is indeed a speed. The expansion rate, now or during inflation, is not a speed since it isn't something expressed in distance/time.

[Bored chemist]

The radius of the marble

... is what we were talking about.
Thanks for the clarification.
The point is that  Dave thinks it's so impossible that we should throw out the BB theory, whereas science says it's supported by evidence.

[evan_au]

the distance between the [galaxy] in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.

I am not aware of any cases where galaxies in opposite directions have been identified as being adjacent to each other.

I think you have been misled by the simple analogy that is often used to describe a finite but unbounded universe:
1. Imagine a 2D universe on the surface of a balloon, with galaxies as little dots
2. No matter how far you travel, you do not hit a boundary.
3. Hypothetically, you could look to the left and see a galaxy, and look to the right and see an adjacent galaxy (or even the same galaxy)
4. If you blow into the balloon, galaxies that are twice as far away move away at twice the speed.
- It's a useful analogy in a number of respects.
- But as far as I know, no-one has actually done (3). (Einstein crosses and arcs don't count, as they lie in the same direction...)

This analogy also has some limitations, for example:
- If the circumference of the balloon is infinite, it becomes harder to get your head around it. But the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.
- If the circumference of the balloon is growing faster than c, you are likely to become rather puffed. But the real universe may be expanding faster than c (and cosmologists suggests that it is).  Again, in this case you can't see around the entire universe - you can only see the part of it that is expanding at less than c.

Analogies are often useful - but don't confuse them with reality.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?

Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.

Reference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc.  The latter is not in units of velocity at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."

He's talking about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

There's no mention at all on that page of 'speed of light', velocity, or 50 billion anything.
Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different things in different units, whether you're talking about inflation or today's expansion.

So, you don't like the "Velocity". However what about "billion times the speed of light"?
Based on relativity nothing could move faster than the speed of light (in the same space time).
So, how can we agree with this imagination?

Your answer is as follow:

Wikipedia no less posts a statement that unqualified. Calling inflation faster than light is like calling 200 watts faster than 6 meters. Congrats on finding a pop source making the mistake I'm pointing out.

The inflation epoch increased the size of what makes up today's visible universe from <not much> to about the size of a marble in a small fraction of a second.  The radius of the marble (not of the universe) thus increased from negligible to say a cm in far less time that it takes light to travel that cm, so the surface of that expanding sphere was (and still very much is) increasing its separation from the arbitrary center point at a speed faster than light.  That's not an expansion rate, but a recession rate of a specific location relative to us. That recession rate is indeed a speed. The expansion rate, now or during inflation, is not a speed since it isn't something expressed in distance/time.

However, in the article they clearly discuss on size in a limited time. Let's read the this section in the article:

"The microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson appeared extremely uniform, with almost no variance. This seemed very paradoxical because when the radiation was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years. There was no time for one end of the cosmos to communicate with the other end, because energy cannot move faster than the speed of light. The paradox was resolved, as Guth soon realized, by the inflation theory. Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed, an amount so small that all parts would have been in touch[vague] with each other. The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken.The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."

So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"
Yes or No?

If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?

Don't you agree that the meaning of size per time is speed?
Hence, the inflation is all about an accelerated expansion speed of the Universe.
However, the most important message is the following:
"The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."

Now it is very clear why in order to get  a UNIFORM universe in that size at that time frame - those Billion times the speed of light was needed.


However, please advice what kind of force/energy could set an inflation of such ultra high speed?
On the other hand we all know that there is a momentum in the Universe.
Hence, if some unrealistic force/energy could speed up the expansion by billion times the speed of light, what kind of force/energy could stop it once it get to the requested size?

Please answer all the above questions.

It seems to me that the idea of the inflation by itself should kill the BBT.
Could it be that Alan Guth wanted to prove that without an inflation of billion times the speed of light the BBT is useless?
In any case, do you agree that without that unrealistic inflation process the BBT is useless?

If you still believe in that inflation, Please show the source of the energy for that inflation process.

Actually we need to add those Inflation forces/energies to the following BBT energy formula:

E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy

So, please explain how the Universe could get all of that energy out of nothing?

Based on BC answer it is all about Noether theorem:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.

Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
"Noether’s theorem shows that the puck’s conservation of momentum is tied to its “symmetry of space translation,"
So, Based on Noether’s theorem space is vitel.
However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?

If there was a space before the bang than by definition there must be an empty space outside our observable universe with no matter.

That idea also kills the BBT.

Quote
the distance between the [galaxy] in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.

I am not aware of any cases where galaxies in opposite directions have been identified as being adjacent to each other.

Why not?
Look to the left - Do you see a galaxy (A) at a distance of 13 .4 BLY from us?
Look to the right - Do you see a galaxy (B) at a distance of 13 .4 BLY from us?
So, what is the distance between those two galaxies?

I think you have been misled by the simple analogy that is often used to describe a finite but unbounded universe:
1. Imagine a 2D universe on the surface of a balloon, with galaxies as little dots
2. No matter how far you travel, you do not hit a boundary.

Sorry - This is not realistic.
You band the physics in order to support the BBT.
Do you confirm that based on the BBT, when the Universe age was 300,000 y, the total size of the Universe was only 90,000 MY?
Yes Or NO?
Do you also confirm that from that date - the expansion rate was quite fixed and limited?
Hence, do you confirm that based on the BBT the current Universe size must be FINITE.
Actually, why can't we calculate the maximal size of the Universe which the BBT can set in 13.8 BY?
If that Universe is too small for our real universe, why don't we set the BBT in the garbage?

- If the circumference of the balloon is infinite, it becomes harder to get your head around it. But the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.

Sorry - There is no way for the BBT to set an infinit universe in only 13.8 BY.
If the Universe is infinite (or bigger than 92BLY) the BBT is useless.

In any case, I have proved that based on Noether theorem without space there is no energy for the BBT.
Hence, if you claim that before the BBT there was no space in the Universe - then you won't get any sort of energy. In this case, in order to deliver energy to the BBT you MUST break the law of energy conservation.
Actually, if there was a space in the Universe before the bang, than why that space can't be infinite?
If we start the BBT while the space of the Universe is infinite - then your assumption about a finite balloon shape universe is not realistic as there is no curvature in our real space/universe.
So, the space is ALWAYS 3D and ONLY 3D before or after any imagination of that Bang or the other.

Conclusion:
You can tell any kind of story about the BBT.
That is perfectly OK.
But if there is a contradiction in that story, then you have to set the whole story in the garbage.
Please set the BBT in the garbage - the sooner is better!

[Bored chemist]

However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?

Finally, you nearly understand it.
Because the big bang is a unique event  with space (and time) after it, but not before, it is not symmetrical and the conservation law does not apply.

That's why the sudden existence of mass at the start of the universe is mathematically permitted.

You kept on asking how all that mass and energy didn't break the conservation laws.
It now seems that you understand it.

That's great progress.

Now here is the next idea you need to grasp.
Time and space do exist today.
So the conservation laws do apply today.
So your idea of spontaneous generation is impossible today.

[Bored chemist]

If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?

For the millionth time...
It isn't something moving through space which has exceeded the speed of light.
Space itself expanded and carried things with it.

Have you forgotten? We explained this.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg603517#msg603517

[Halc]

Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc.  The latter is not in units of velocity at all.

[wiki :: Alan_Guth]
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."

That comment is taken out of context. It is referring to the rate of increase in size of what today comprises the visible universe, which it says if you had included full context.

An object currently 10 exaparsecs away is increasing its proper distance from us at a pace greater than a billion times the speed of light, so does that mean that the universe is expanding faster now than back during inflation?  No, because expansion rate is not measured in distance/time, but the rate of change of a specific dimension is, and that is what the quote above refers to.

The wiki entry is massively simplified and the logic as presented is fallacious since even with normal expansion rates, all the material would have been ‘in touch’ at time zero.  The inflation model solves problems that seem to be beyond the ability of the wiki author to describe to what is probably a pop-science audience.

Based on relativity nothing could move faster than the speed of light (in the same space time)

Nothing can move faster than light relative to a flat Minkowski coordinate system, which doesn’t describe the universe at large scales. All these rates of change of proper size are expressed in a completely different coordinate system than the one used in SR.

However, in the article they clearly discuss on size in a limited time.

Size of what? Not the universe. That’s never stated to be any finite thing.

So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"

Sounds plausible, except the figure should be 380,000 years. Maybe it wasn’t known to more than one digit back then.

If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?

Wrong coordinate system. This is entirely consistent with general relativity, which forbids only peculiar motion greater than light speed. You've identified nothing that does that.

Don't you agree that the meaning of size per time is speed?

Speed is distance per time. The space between opposite boundaries of an object at different times can be expressed as a distance, yes. The expansion rate of the universe cannot be expressed this way as it has no size.

I can trivially make the size of something (say the length of a shadow of a triangle on a string) increase at far greater than light speed (in flat spacetime) without anything actually moving at > light speed. So size of something over time is not limited to c.

Hence, the inflation is all about an accelerated expansion speed of the Universe.

Nobody said accelerating.  OK, it is accelerating now, but the inflation they’re talking about was much greater than the inflation rate now, so it seems a mistake to characterize it as acceleration.

Now it is very clear why in order to get  a UNIFORM universe in that size at that time frame - those Billion times the speed of light was needed.

It only got to the size of a marble during the inflation epoch. 90 million light years is radius 45 million, which (using the 300,000 year figure) is about 150x light speed. So not sure how a billion was ‘very clear’ to you, other than somebody flippantly using the word to mean ‘a lot’.  Yes, the visible universe grew to the size of a marble (sources differ on this a bit) at some speed considerable greater than 150c, but that ended after about 250 picoseconds (sources differ on this a bit as well), which is hardly a third of a million years.

On the other hand we all know that there is a momentum in the Universe.

Is there now? What is it? Which way does it go?

Hence, if some unrealistic force/energy could speed up the expansion by billion times the speed of light, what kind of force/energy could stop it once it get to the requested size?

You’re trying to leverage Newtonian concepts in an epoch where they’re entirely inapplicable.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

1. Inflation -

[wiki :: Alan_Guth]
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."

That comment is taken out of context. It is referring to the rate of increase in size of what today comprises the visible universe, which it says if you had included full context.

An object currently 10 exaparsecs away is increasing its proper distance from us at a pace greater than a billion times the speed of light, so does that mean that the universe is expanding faster now than back during inflation?  No, because expansion rate is not measured in distance/time, but the rate of change of a specific dimension is, and that is what the quote above refers to.

The wiki entry is massively simplified and the logic as presented is fallacious since even with normal expansion rates, all the material would have been ‘in touch’ at time zero.  The inflation model solves problems that seem to be beyond the ability of the wiki author to describe to what is probably a pop-science audience.

There is no error in Wiki.
Alan Guth is a very cleaver scientist.
There must be a reason why he had stated that the inflation speed is billion times the speed of light.
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".
You have stated that some time after the bang the whole matter in the Universe was concentrated in a size of a marble.

the visible universe grew to the size of a marble (sources differ on this a bit) at some speed considerable greater than 150c, but that ended after about 250 picoseconds (sources differ on this a bit as well), which is hardly a third of a million years.

Hence, just after the Bnag the maximal size of the Universe might be even less than a planck.
Just think about a planck size full with the matter of the entire Universe.
Don't you agree that this kind of size represents a Super Giant SMBH?
So, without the inflation, the BBT would end after the Big bang with a Big SMBH.
No more and no less.
Alan Guth did understand it.
I assume that he tried to estimate what is the requested escape velocity that is needed to overcome the Ultra high gravity force in that Marble.
Therefore, he offred the Inflation process with escape velocity of billion times the speed of light.

However, when Alan Guth offered his idea about the Inflation, our scientists assume that the Universe size is very compact.
So, it is clear that at that time he estimated that the maximal matter is quite limited.
Now we all understand the our real Universe is much bigger than the expectations at that time.
Don't also forget that he actually focused only on ordinary matter, as at that time no one had considered the dark matter or dark energy.
So, if Alen Guth would try to find the real escape velocity that was needed for the entire OM of the Universe that is concentrated in a planck size, he might find that even a trillion times the speed of light isn't good enough.
There is also a possibility that our universe is infinite:

but the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.

In this case, even an inflation with trillion over trillion over... trillion speed of light is not good enough.

However, once you set the inflation - there is no way to stop it.
Hence, due to the inflation of billion times (or trillion times the speed of light) all the matter would move away from each other at that ultra high speed.
Therefore, two second after the bang all the matter in the universe would go to the infinity.
Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up with as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real Universe

2. BBT Energy conservation
You also didn't answer my question about the source of energy for the BBT.
As based on the BBT, there was no space in the Universe before the bang, then Noether’s theorem can't work and can't help the BBT to get any bit of energy:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
"Noether’s theorem shows that the puck’s conservation of momentum is tied to its “symmetry of space translation,"
So, Based on Noether’s theorem space is vital.
However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?

There are other key issues that should kill the BBT.
How as a scientist you can hold a theory which doesn't give a perfect fit for our Universe?
Just to claim that this is the best that we have is a severe mistake as you do not open your mind to other real theory.
So, please - why don't you give up and set this irrelevant BBT theory in the garbage and then open yourself to think on real theory for our Universe?

[Bored chemist]

Noether’s theorem can't work and can't help the BBT to get any bit of energy:

Nobody said it would.
However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible.
The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.
So there must have been a start.

Where the energy came from is a question to which I don't know if we will ever know the answer.
I gather the best available idea is this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

The point remains that Noether's theorem, while it does not say where the big bang came from, does say that your idea is mathematically impossible.

I think that it is due to "escape velocity".

It's the universe.
What the **** can it "escape" from?

How as a scientist you can hold a theory which doesn't give a perfect fit for our Universe?

LOL
You keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.

I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.
But yours is not so much"not a perfect fit" as " direct contradictions of facts".

There are other key issues that should kill the BBT.

Like what?
All you have shown so far is that you don't understand it.
You haven't shown any actual problem in it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:37:29
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".

It's the universe.
What the **** can it "escape" from?

Escape velocity - Ve
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]

Ve = √ 2GM/r
"Where G is the universal gravitational constant (G ≈ 6.67×10−11 m3•kg−1•s−2), M the mass of the body to be escaped from, and r the distance from the center of mass of the body to the object"

Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
"In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time. It is also the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with Planck mass. It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m"

Hence
r = 1.616255(18)×10−35 m

If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infinite
M= ∞

Therefore, the requested escape velocity after the Big Bang from that Planck size is also infinite

Ve = √ 2GM/r =  √ 2G∞/1.616255(18)×10−35 m = ∞

Hence, the requested escape velocity from that planck size after the Big bang is infinite.

Therefore:

Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real Universe

You keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.

Who really ignores the escape velocity law of physics?

Like what?

No need.
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.

I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.

How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?

The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.
So there must have been a start.

That is correct.
However, it is clearly not due to the BBT fatal model

[Halc]

You have stated that some time after the bang the whole matter in the Universe was concentrated in a size of a marble.

I said no such thing. Neither did Guth.

Hence, just after the Bnag the maximal size of the Universe might be even less than a planck.

That would mean it has a finite size. Nobody said anything about it necessarily having a finite size.

Don't you agree that this kind of size represents a Super Giant SMBH?

You’re picturing the naive view of a bang happening at a location in space. That’s never been the model.  The bang happened everywhere, not in one place. So no black hole, which is somewhere and not elsewhere. The escape velocity is from it to 'elsewhere'.

Escape velocity - Ve
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]

See what I mean? You’re picturing the universe as an object in space, with stuff trying to escape from it. BC is correct. There is no direction to go to escape the stuff since the bang happens uniformly everywhere. There’s no escaping from ‘everywhere’.

Ve = √ 2GM/r

This is the Newtonian approximation and only works for small masses like the sun and such. Again you attempt to use Newtonian physics in an epoch where they’re entirely inapplicable.

Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)

Wrong. The theory says no such thing, since this is assigning a size to something whose size is not bounded by any known measurement. This is all strawman arguments.

If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infinite

It it is infinite, there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite, so your logic falls apart. The size of the universe was always infinite, however much compressed in the beginning.

You’ll ignore my comments again as you have all others, as evidenced by your continued attempt at inappropriate application of Newtonian physics.
I edited out quite a few questions since they’ve been already answered by me. You obviously are not actually seeking answers.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The bang happened everywhere, not in one place.

Can you please specify the size of that "everywhere"?
You had confirmed that the size of the Universe was 90MLY when its age was 380,000 Years.

Quote
So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"

Sounds plausible, except the figure should be 380,000 years. Maybe it wasn’t known to more than one digit back then.

So, do you agree that at the Big bang moment the size of the Universe should be at least smaller than that?
Even if the Big Bang set a size of 90 MLY at its first moment, how do you call that size "everywhere"?
Just for your information, based on Google translate:
Everywhere - "in all places or directions. everywhere was in darkness".
Hence, don't you agree that everywhere means endless or infinite?
Actually you confirm that the Universe is infinite:

It it is infinite, there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite, so your logic falls apart. The size of the universe was always infinite, however much compressed in the beginning.

So, as you confirm that:

1. "there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite".
2. The maximal size of the Universe was only 90MLY at age of 380,000

Then how can you fit that "everywhere" or the infinite Universe into a finite 90MLY (or less) at age 380,000?
How a finite Universe at 90MLY could be transformed into infinite Universe in 13.4 Years?
If it was 90MLY or less, then why do you call it "everywhere"?

Please - based on the BBT, what was the size of the Universe before the bang and 10^-40 sec after the bang?

[evan_au]

once you set the inflation - there is no way to stop it.

At the present time, there is no solid evidence about what caused cosmic inflation.
- Everything we can see about it is hidden behind the opaque veil of the CMBR, which blocks all electromagnetic radiation.

There are some ideas that inflation may have been like a phase change...
- eg as a solid heats up, it changes to liquid. This phase change stops when all the solid has become liquid
- Some suggest that today's accelerating expansion of the universe may be a similar phase change effect
- It is possible that after this phase change, there may be more coming.
 
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

In future, we may not be limited to seeing with electromagnetic radiation.
- Neutrinos and Gravitational Waves interact much more weakly with matter than electromagnetism
- One day, we may be able to detect relic neutrinos and Gravitational Waves from the Big Bang, allowing scientists to peer back to timescales around 1 second after the Big Bang, which will provide a lot of information that we don't have today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background

[Dave Lev (OP)]

At the present time, there is no solid evidence about what caused cosmic inflation.
- Everything we can see about it is hidden behind the opaque veil of the CMBR, which blocks all electromagnetic radiation.

Well, what we can't see is irrelevant. We must focus only on what we see.

We currently discuss on the BBT theory.
You can claim that based on this theory the universe size is finite or infinite.
You can claim that when the universe age was 10^-40 sec its size was one Planck size or infinite.
You can claim that when the universe age was 380,000 Ly its size was 90MLY or infinite.
You can also set the inflation speed to one meter per day or 50 Billions times the speed of light.

I'm ready to accept any idea that you wish on the BBT.
However, once you set all your ideas for that theory it is your obligation to verify that there is no integrated contradiction in that theory.

Therefore, do you agree that:
If the size of the Universe was 90ML at age of 380,000 year, there is no way for it to set an infinite Universe after 13.4 BY?
If the size of the Universe at age 10^-40 was already infinite (everywhere), how could it be that at age 380,000 Y it was only 90MLY?
So please – as there is a clear integrated contradiction in the BBT, this theory is irrelevant.

If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.

Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
If you really don't know then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.

[Bored chemist]

Who really ignores the ... law of physics?

You.
You are the one who is proposing that matter is continuously created in the universe, even though the science and maths shows that this is impossible.
.

The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.

You didn't use the right formula, did you?
The one you used is a Newtonian one, and what you need is a relativistic one.

If you actually understood what you were talking about, you would have realised that.
But you didn't.
Because you don't.

How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?

Are you able to show (using real science , not made-up nonsense) how the BBT does not model the universe?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:37:29
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".

It's the universe.
What the **** can it "escape" from?

Escape velocity - Ve
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]

Ve = √ 2GM/r
"Where G is the universal gravitational constant (G ≈ 6.67×10−11 m3•kg−1•s−2), M the mass of the body to be escaped from, and r the distance from the center of mass of the body to the object"

Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
"In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time. It is also the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with Planck mass. It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m"

Hence
r = 1.616255(18)×10−35 m

If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infinite
M= ∞

Therefore, the requested escape velocity after the Big Bang from that Planck size is also infinite

Ve = √ 2GM/r =  √ 2G∞/1.616255(18)×10−35 m = ∞

Hence, the requested escape velocity from that planck size after the Big bang is infinite.

Therefore:

Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real Universe

You keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.

Who really ignores the escape velocity law of physics?

Like what?

No need.
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.

I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.

How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?

The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.
So there must have been a start.

That is correct.
However, it is clearly not due to the BBT fatal model

OK, so you agree that the Universe has a start.
Either it started "everywhere at once" which is impossible, or it started somewhere and grew.
In which case, exactly the same problems will occur with any model you come up with for an infinite universe.
Yes that makes teh BBT difficult.
But it also makes your model impossible.
And your model was already impossible due to Olbers paradox and the conservation of energy/ mass.

Since there are now three reasons that your model is impossible, but none for the BBT, why don't you accept that it is your impossible idea that should be put in the bin?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38
Who really ignores the ... law of physics?

You.
You are the one who is proposing that matter is continuously created in the universe, even though the science and maths shows that this is impossible.

No
Einstein has already told us in his ENPC theory that new particles could be created.
You are the one that claim that Einstein is wrong while you are wrong.
However, please ignore Einstein as we currently focus on the BBT.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.

You didn't use the right formula, did you?
The one you used is a Newtonian one, and what you need is a relativistic one.

You are wrong again
The relativistic formula should give exactly the same answer as Newtonian one.
If you still think differently - prove it.

OK, so you agree that the Universe has a start.

Sure

Either it started "everywhere at once" which is impossible, or it started somewhere and grew.

So you confirm that it "it started somewhere and grew".
Thanks - I fully agree with that explanation.

You also confirm that Halc idea of "everywhere" isn't realistic.

In which case, exactly the same problems will occur with any model you come up with for an infinite universe.
Yes that makes teh BBT difficult

As you agree that there is a problem with any theory including the BBT and as you confirm that there is also a difficult with the BBT, this theory is useless.
Please be aware that you actually confirm that there is integrated contradiction in the BBT theory.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38
How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?

Are you able to show (using real science , not made-up nonsense) how the BBT does not model the universe?

Sure.
You have just confirmed it
As you also can't answer the following questions:

If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.

Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
If you really don't know then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.

It proves that the BBT is useless

But it also makes your model impossible.

I agree that any theory that can't offer real answer for that key problem should also join the BBT at the garbage even if it is my theory.

Since there are now three reasons that your model is impossible, but none for the BBT,

You have just confirmed that there is a problem with the BBT.

Yes that makes teh BBT difficult.

So how can you claim that there is none for the BBT?

why don't you accept that it is your impossible idea that should be put in the bin?

Once we all agree that the BBT is useless and set it in the Bin, we can open our mind to new theory.
I'm ready to set my theory in that bin if there is integrated contradiction in the theory.

[Bored chemist]

You are the one that claim that Einstein is wrong while you are wrong.

It's nothing to do with the people who drafted the theories.
It's to do with the fact that continuous generation is known to be impossible.
You really need to focus on that.

I agree that any theory that can't offer real answer for that key problem should also join the BBT at the garbage even if it is my theory.

OK, so you agree that, because your idea can't offer a real answer to the key problem of breaking the laws of conservation, it should be in the garbage.
I guess that's a start.