[Bored chemist]

I also believe that you know that my messages are correct

No.
You said that things had to be moving fast to have relativistic mass, and I pointed out that even slow things have (very small) relativistic mass.

This is not important to the early universe, because practically nothing was moving slowly.
But you tried to use something which was wrong and irrelevant to make a point.
That's not scientific discussion, is it?

[Bored chemist]

Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.

I have not told any lies.
I might have made the odd mistake, like not being clear that I was talking about the relativistic mass.

If you think I keep lying, you should have no difficulty quoting things I have said which are dishonest.

Go on.
Quote them.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:59:45
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct

No.
You said that things had to be moving fast to have relativistic mass, and I pointed out that even slow things have (very small) relativistic mass.

No
We have discussed about massless particles which could break the edge of the total early universe proton space size due to their high peculiar velocity.
We know that there are different types of particles. Some are mass particles and some are massless particles.
Please tell us which kind of verified massless "things" were integrated/generated by the Big Bang energy and could move at low speed (much low than the speed of light) in order to gain some relativistic mass.
As you wish to believe in those "things" instead of real massless particles, would you kindly tell us what was the peculiar velocity of those "things"?
Do you also claim that no verified massless particle (as photon) had been generated by the Big Bang?
So are you sure that there were no massles particles or "things" that could have a peculiar velocity of almost the speed of light immediately after that bang?
Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?

If not, why do you keep on with all of those lies?

[Bored chemist]

We have discussed about massless particles which could break the edge of the total early universe proton space size due to their high peculiar velocity.

No; you talked about them.
I ignored you because I was still trying to get you to understand that even a slow particle has relativistic mass.
So there was mass in the early universe so pair production was possible.

You then went off on some rant about massless particles traveling at C which is true, but can not be relevant to a discussion of slow particles.

Please tell us which kind of verified massless "things" were integrated/generated by the Big Bang energy and could move at low speed (much low than the speed of light) in order to gain some relativistic mass.

That makes no sense.
We don't need anything to go slowly.

Even things that are travelling at C can still gain mass.
If I reflect light off a mirror that is moving towards the source, the reflected photons have more energy and thus a higher mass than they did before reflection.

All you need to enable pair production is mass.
And there was mass there
So we could have pair production.

would you kindly tell us what was the peculiar velocity of those "things"?

For the sake of discussion, they would probably have a Boltzmann distribution of velocities.

As you wish to believe in those "things" instead of real massless particles,

I never said anything like that.
You made it up, or you have failed to understand the science I was talking about.
If you think I did then please point it out.

Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?

Why the obsession with articles?
Do you understand that I can write an article and post it on the web?

Anyway, it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.

[Bored chemist]

Everything that BC says is correct.

[Bored chemist]

Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?

I can now.
Please see this brief article on the web.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg625354#msg625354

Now do you see why demanding articles just makes you look silly?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?

I can now.
Please see this brief article on the web.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg625354#msg625354
Now do you see why demanding articles just makes you look silly?

Sorry, you can't just backup your nonsense by your own nonsense even if you believe that your nonsense should be considered as "science".
You have totally failed to backup the BBT imagination by real science articles.
Actually, the energy in the BBT can't even cross the Era Planck size and it clearly can't set any sort of particle pair.

However, the biggest obstacle of the BBT theory is time and space.
The assumption that the BBT can create the time and the space in our universe is the biggest imagination EVER. (Much more than any imagination about mass or energy.)
Sorry - you and all the BBT scientists could play in your imagination with energy and mass as you wish, however, no one could play with space or time.
The space & time in our Universe was there forever and ever.
The BBT can't create time or space. Einstein had confirmed that message.
No one can create time or space. The BBT isn't the God of the Universe. Even in the Billie they do not claim for that.

Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.

In our real Universe the Time and space was always there.
There was a time while there was no matter in our Universe and it was clearly infinite empty space. However, don't forget that even in empty space there is some energy.
Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).
As the BBT scientists won't accept the simple idea that they have no legal authorization to play with time and space, we all should ignore the BBT nonsense and clear the table for real science.

Any new theory for our universe should start while the infinite space and infinite time was always there!!!

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, you can't just backup your nonsense by your own nonsense even if you believe that your nonsense should be considered as "science".

So, you, missed the point again.
Of course it's nonsense; that's the point.
An article on the web can be nonsense.
Why do you keep demanding "articles"?

Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.

OK
We can see the expansion of space.
We can see that , if we extrapolate that backwards there's a "crunch". There is a point- about 14 billion years ago when everything which we can see today was in the same place
If you don't accept the big bang, then you need to explain what happened before the experimentally observed  expansion started.

What is your explanation?

(also, please stop posting stuff about songs).

Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).

It can't.
Olber showed that.

As the BBT scientists won't accept the simple idea

Of course we don't.
Because it's plainly wrong.

If you understood science you wouldn't keep going on about an idea that is dead.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:53:05
Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.

OK
We can see the expansion of space.
We can see that , if we extrapolate that backwards there's a "crunch". There is a point- about 14 billion years ago when everything which we can see today was in the same place
If you don't accept the big bang, then you need to explain what happened before the experimentally observed  expansion started.

Why do you lie?
We don't see any expansion is space.
We only see expansion of the galaxies.
The assumption that the expansion of the galaxies is due to the expansion in space is one of the BIGGEST mistakes of the modern science.
Therefore, you should set the BBT in the garbage.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:53:05
Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).

It can't.
Olber showed that.

Well, Olber had assumed that if the universe is infinity then we should get the light form a galaxy which is located at the infinity in that universe.
However, that assumption is clearly incorrect.
The Universe is infinity.
There are galaxies up to the infinity.
However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.
So, we can only get light from galaxies which are located up to a limited distance.
That distance might be 13BLY, 130Bly or more than that.
However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.
Therefore, even as the infinite universe is totally not symmetrical and we are actually located much closer to one side (but still far away from the edge), at any spot that we would be in that Universe we should observe up to limited distance.
Hence, the CMBR is almost identical in each direction.
So, technically at any spot that we would be in our infinite Universe, the impact of the radiation would come from a limited radius sphere around us.
We can call this sphere an Observable or Visible Universe.
But it is just a local point in the infinite Universe
I have already explained this issue to you, but as you have already rejected this real science explanation in the past, I assume that you should do it again.

You don't care about real science - you only care about the BBT nonsense of space expansion.
Sorry again - there is no space expansion in our universe
You and all the BBT scientists lie about it!!!.
The space was fixed in the past and it would be fixed in the future.
It can't increase its size by 1 Pico mm even per 10^10...0 trillion LY.
As you clearly believe that we see the expansion in space - you live in lie. However, you don't just lie to all of us, but you specifically lie to yourself.

Please wake up and get out from the BBT imagination.

[Bored chemist]

Why do you lie?

You have not yet shown any evidence that I do.
That's because, in the real world, I don't.

We only see expansion of the galaxies.

We see the galaxies getting further apart.
The thing between them is space.
So we see space getting bigger.

But the point is moot.
What we see is expansion.
If you play that back, you get a crunch.

However, that assumption is clearly incorrect.

Why?
Please answer that without recourse to "tired light" ideas which have already been shown to be false.

However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.

That's only possible if space itself is expanding.
You didn't seem to like that idea.

However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.

You only get that in an expanding universe.
An expanding universe implies that it expanded "from somewhere".
And that's what we call the Big Bang.
So, if you don't accept the BBT you can't have your expansion.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45
We only see expansion of the galaxies.

We see the galaxies getting further apart.
The thing between them is space.
So we see space getting bigger.

What a nonsense.
If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting bigger due to the expansion in space?
In the same token if we move closer to each other does it mean that there is crunch in space?
Sorry - galaxies can move in any direction and at any velocity without changing the space.
The space is fixed and it will always be fixed with or without your confirmation.

What we see is expansion.
If you play that back, you get a crunch.

Nonsense...
Our BBT scientists claim that new matter could only be created at the Big Bang moment.
However, Einstein has told us very clearly that new matter is constantly generated in our Universe.
Therefore, as the galaxies are moving away from each other new galaxies pop up/added in between.
All the particles in the accretion disc of our SMBH are new particles.
Those particles would be converted into new molecular and set new stars and new BH.
Each BH would hold massive galaxy in the Future.
Therefore, if you play the time back, the galaxies would come closer, but each galaxy would shrink eventually to a tiny BH.
The Milky Way had started some time ago as a very tiny BH. Same story with Andromeda or any other massive galaxy.
So, if you play the galaxies expansion back, you don't get any crunch as there is no expansion in the space itself.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45
However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.

That's only possible if space itself is expanding.

More Nonsense.
It is possible due to the idea of galaxies over galaxies - if you wish, rocket over rocket.
I have already deeply explained that process.

 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45
However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.

You only get that in an expanding universe.

Rocket over rocket can do the job.
Think about galaxies generations.
if each tiny BH is ejected from its mother galaxy at velocity V, while each BH would be converted to massive galaxy - then after 10 generations (assuming that all are moving in one direction, the younger galaxy would move at 10 times V with regards to the first galaxy.
Is it clear to you?
No need for space expansion. Only new particle creation as stated by Einstein is good enough.

An expanding universe implies that it expanded "from somewhere".

Well, it is not expanding Universe, but expanding galaxies.
Even so, I agree with you as it implies that the galaxies must eventually start "from somewhere".
However, that somewhere had started infinite time ago by some sort of a bang (or small bang).
The bang had created the first BH in our infinite and empty Universe, while that BH is the mother of all the infinite galaxies that exists today in our infinite Universe.
So, yes it started from somewhere, but that somewhere is just tiny spot at the infinite empty universe space and not the whole space of the Universe as you wish to believe based on the BBT.

And that's what we call the Big Bang.

Yes, I agree - the matter had stated by a Bang.
However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.

So, if you don't accept the BBT you can't have your expansion.

I assume that you have already got an answer for that message.

Good luck!

[Bored chemist]

If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting bigger

Yes.
For example, you might increase the space from two metres to three.
I think this may be a linguistic problem.

However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.

No, it isn't - because of the conservation of energy.
No matter how hot it was at the outset, in an infinite time, it would have gone cold.

You have not yet shown any evidence that I do.
That's because, in the real world, I don't.

Still waiting for you to try to prove your silly claim that I'm a liar.

[Bored chemist]

Is it clear to you?

It is clear to me that you don't know how to add velocities.
You have been told before that you can't use newtonian physics in these sorts of calculations.

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.

.

And you were told this before

That's still wrong.
You can't just add relativistic velocities as if they were apples.

So is the problem stupidity or dishonesty?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45
If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting bigger

Yes.
For example, you might increase the space from two metres to three.
I think this may be a linguistic problem.

Sorry
We move in our planet in all directions while the total space in the planet is fixed.
So, there is no change in the space of the planet due to our movement.
In the same token the total size of the Universe is fixed with or without the movement of the galaxies in that space.
Therefore, the movements of the galaxies in the Universe space don't change the total space of the infinite Universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45
However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.

No, it isn't - because of the conservation of energy.
No matter how hot it was at the outset, in an infinite time, it would have gone cold.

Einstein had told us very clearly that new particle creation is real
He also gave the explanation for that process.
I'm not going to argue about that issue any more.
If you think that you that Einstein is foolish than it is your personal problem.

Still waiting for you to try to prove your silly claim that I'm a liar.

Yes you are liar.
As you claim that we see the expansion in space while we only see expansion in galaxies - then this is a clear lie.
You twist again and again the data in order to confuse me.
Please stop it once and for all.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45
Is it clear to you?

It is clear to me that you don't know how to add velocities.
You have been told before that you can't use newtonian physics in these sorts of calculations.

It doesn't matter if we use Newtonian one or relativistic one for the correct answer.
As long as we agree that 10 times v is bigger than 9 times v it's good enough to explain the ultra high velocity of the far end galaxies.
So, even if 10,000 generation of galaxies is needed for the farthest galaxy that we can still see, this is perfectly OK.

[Bored chemist]

Yes you are liar.

You keep saying that.
But you keep failing to prove it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes you are liar.

You keep saying that.
But you keep failing to prove it.

I have a solid prove for you.
It is called "Redshift".
Redshift is all about relative Newtonian velocity.
If we see an object with redshift of 0.1 then we know that its Newtonian velocity must be 0.1c with reference to us.
In the same token, when we see an object with redshift 1 it tells us that its Newtonian velocity is exactly 1c with reference to us.
The fastest galaxy that we can still observe has a redshift of about 13.
So, we can still see a galaxy that its Newtonian velocity is 13c with reference to us.
However, as we can still see those galaxies, it proves that Einstein was perfectly correct with his relativity theory.
So, although galaxies have Newtonian velocity of 13c their relativity velocity must be below c otherwise we couldn't see them any more.
I assume that as we will improve our tools we might see galaxies with higher redshift (15 or 20?).
So, there must be a maximal velocity for the direct observable light radiation that we can still see.

However, the CMBR radiation is different kind of radiation as it is actually a microwave radiation.
It works as RADAR.
Think about a pilot in a plane.
He can only observe to a very limited distance.
However, by using its microwave radar he can "see" objects from very far away distances (at least 100 times further).
https://www.univie.ac.at/geographie/fachdidaktik/FD/site/external_htmls/imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/micro.html
"Because microwaves can penetrate haze, light rain and snow, clouds and smoke, these waves are good for viewing the Earth from space."
That is why we get the CMBR radiation with a redshift of almost 1100.
That CMBR microwave radiation tells us that it came from objects/galaxies which are moving away at Newtonian velocity of 1100c with reference to us.
So, there is a sphere for maximal observable light (about 13 c) and there is a sphere for maximal observable microwave (1100c).
That is the answer for what we really see in our infinite universe.
In the same token, the CMBR microwaves radiation can better penetrate the haze of our universe
Our BBT scientists had twisted the real meaning of redshift.
They call it "redshift in Astronomy" and somehow they twist that data to time or distance (due to Hubbel law I assume).
Sorry, the meaning of redshift in real science has the same meaning in astronomy.
It is all about Newtonian velocity and ONLY about Newtonian velocity.
Not distance, not time.
Therefore, with regards to the following:
"In the 1960's a startling discovery was made quite by accident. A pair of scientists at Bell Laboratories detected background noise using a special low noise antenna. The strange thing about the noise was that it was coming from every direction and did not seem to vary in intensity much at all. If this static were from something on our world, like radio transmissions from a nearby airport control tower, it would only come from one direction, not everywhere. The scientists soon realized they had discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation, which fills the entire Universe, is believed to be a clue to it's beginning, something known as the Big Bang."
No No
We actually see the CMBR microvwaves radiation that comes from all the very far away galaxies around us which are moving away at almost 1100c (Newtonian velocity).
That CMBR microwave radiation can penetrate the haze of our universe. Therefore we can see them in all directions.
Due to that twisted data, our BBT scientists have totally got lost.

Its wake up time for all of you.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to have lost track of what you were doing there, and started ranting about Newtonian redshift- which doesn't work anyway.

I have a solid prove for you.

OK, so quote something which I have said, and which is not true (and which I knew wasn't true).

That's the only way to prove your assertion that I'm a liar.
And, if you don't do that- or apologise, I'm going to ask the mods to ban you for your libellous allegation.

Do you understand that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

OK, so quote something which I have said, and which is not true (and which I knew wasn't true).
That's the only way to prove your assertion that I'm a liar.

As you insist...

it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.

You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.
I have just proved that you have a fatal error with regards to the speed of light of massless particles and you even do not apologize on that.
Now you try to twist the story:

The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.

Sorry - there are no other massless particles that could move at low velocity. It was clearly stated in the article.
So you keep on with the same negative approach.
I actually do believe that you have deep knowledge in science and I am positively sure that you knew that massless particles can't move at a low velocity.
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct, but you keep on with your objections as the BBT is more important to you than real science.
Therefore, it is very clear to me by now that in order to disqualify my messages against the BBT you are ready to lie.
Hence, I can't believe you anymore and I ask you to backup your lies with real articles.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:48:07
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.

If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?

No.
Nobody in this forum has used any sort of lie in order to disqualify my understanding.
Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.
Therefore, I have no intention to accept those lies any more.
Shame on you!

Let me add the following:
you clearly lie when you have stated that:

The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.

As any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light as was clearly explained at the following article:

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/massless-particles-cant-be-stopped
"Massless particles are purely energy. “It’s sufficient for a particle to have energy to have a meaningful sense of existence,” says Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside."
"Photons and gluons, two force-carrying particles, are fundamental, so they don’t host the internal tug-of-war of a composite particle. They are also unaffected by the Higgs field. Indeed, they seem to be without mass."
"The two particles physicists know to be (at least approximately) massless—photons and gluons—are both force-carrying particles, also known as gauge bosons. Photons are associated with the electromagnetic force, and gluons are associated with the strong force. (The graviton, a gauge boson associated with gravity, is also expected be massless, but its existence hasn’t been confirmed yet.)"
It is also stated that the massless particles always travel at the speed of light.:
"These massless particles have some unique properties. They are completely stable, so unlike some particles, they do not lose their energy decaying into pairs of less massive particles.
Because all their energy is kinetic, they always travel at the speed of light. And thanks to special relativity, “things traveling at the speed of light don't actually age,” Tanedo says. “So a photon is actually not aging relative to us. It’s timeless, in that sense.”

So, how can you claim that "smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero" while Massless particles MUST move at the speed of light?

There are no mass less particles that could move at low velocity.
Therefore, your answer that some mass less particles could move at small velocity and gain mass is clearly lie as there are no massless particles that move at small velocity - and you know that!

That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.

Shame on you as your mission is to base your arguments on lie just in order to confuse me.
Therefore, from now on I do not believe to any message from you.
If you wish to continue the discussion it is your obligation to backup your messages by real article.
Let's start with the following:
Please offer an article (not yours) that shows which kind of massless particle moves at "small velocity" .

[Bored chemist]

Let me add the following:
you clearly lie when you have stated that:
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 15:35:31
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.
As any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light as was clearly explained at the following article:

If you read that carefully, you will see that we are both saying the same thing.

"The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C."
 Simplifying that we get: "particles that have zero rest mass ... are ...travelling at C."
And you say
"any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light "

So, you say I'm lying because I say the same thing you do.

At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?


The reason I said it was that you had just said this

However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.

And I was pointing out that you are wrong.
You claim to know the physics.
If you know it then you must have lied when you said "in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high "
Or you must have lied when you said that you didn't need to learn physics.

Which lie did you tell?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?

Yes, you are wrong!
Mass less particles have zero rest mass.
However, as they move at the speed of light they have relativistic mass due to their velocity.
Never the less, all the massless particles in the UNIVERSE MUST move at the speed of light..
Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".
Therefore, your following point is clearly incorrect (or lie if you wish)

The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.

There are no massless particles that move slow and have relativistic mass.
Is it clear to you by now or you insist to waste our time?