Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
See my post above yours just now.This doesn't even make any sense.
What are we guys supposed "look into it" when you don't supply the information or this amazingly simple logic a child would understand.
I'm calling your bluff you don't have any counterarguments and the argument of incredulity fallacy is the motivating factor here.
Ironically, how they had to come up with the "at least 200 times larger theory", is because they have absolutely no evidence of a single center origin point, ironically, etc, which is admitting they currently have no evidence of or for that really, etc...Ok, I guess I'm a bit bored right now, and have a couple of minutes on my hands, etc, so let's just try one simple logic experiment, shall we...
Currently the observable universe is 92-93 billion light years large, right...?
Well, current data/projections say that the entire thing, if there is even a limit to the entire thing, is at least 200 times larger than that, correct...? So let's just use that lower number/estimate for right now shall we...?
200 times 92 is... 18 trillion 400 billion light years large, correct...? So, tell me how that all got there from one single origin point, or only one single BB, when it is only supposed to be 13.8 billion years old, or only happened just only 13.8 billion years ago, etc...?
It had to expand very, very rapidly, like almost beyond belief rapidly, to be from just one single origin point (single singularity) in that amount of time, and then nearly halted all of the suddenly, like fictional Star Wars aircraft coming out of hyperspace, for that to all be true and correct and for that to happen that way, etc, there is not enough time for gradual deceleration either, the time is just too small, and the universe too large, etc...
It's a very clear logic contradiction, as we know the universe did not do that, (either one of those things) and especially since it is still supposed to be speeding up in that expansion or acceleration still supposedly, etc...
The numbers and the data (and the pictures), etc, do not match, and as of right now, there is absolutely no evidence at all for the BB, age of the universe maybe, "maybe", but not the BB, etc...
If it as only as old as they say it is, but is also the size they say it must be (and we are using the "lower number estimates", etc) then it could not have all started out as a single singularity, or from one single origin point, etc, but would have to have started already laid or spread out already, etc, if it is only as old as the current orthodoxy insists that it is, etc, because it just cannot be otherwise, not unless it is much, much, much (and did I say "much"), anyway, much, much older than they currently say it is, because only then, can any kind of BB, even be remotely possible at this point, etc...
I need to do more research as to just exactly what point in time the BB was first suggested/thought of, and what amount of data they had at that time, but I can absolutely guarantee you that they thought the universe was a lot smaller at that time, and it is outdated now due to how large we now know it at least has to be at least now, etc...
And at risk of starting to repeat myself all over again now, I'm going to stop there for now, ok...
This is not all I know or have to say about it (the universe) either, etc, but there is "more", etc...
Problem is a lot of them call for a drastic change in thinking, and maybe even complete desolution of some current models, etc...
God Bless!
Ok, I guess I'm a bit bored right now, and have a couple of minutes on my hands, etc, so let's just try one simple logic experiment, shall we...
Currently the observable universe is 92-93 billion light years large, right...?
Well, current data/projections say that the entire thing, if there is even a limit to the entire thing, is at least 200 times larger than that, correct...? So let's just use that lower number/estimate for right now shall we...?
200 times 92 is... 18 trillion 400 billion light years large, correct...? So, tell me how that all got there from one single origin point, or only one single BB, when it is only supposed to be 13.8 billion years old, or only happened just only 13.8 billion years ago, etc...?
It had to expand very, very rapidly, like almost beyond belief rapidly, to be from just one single origin point (single singularity) in that amount of time, and then nearly halted all of the suddenly, like fictional Star Wars aircraft coming out of hyperspace, for that to all be true and correct and for that to happen that way, etc, there is not enough time for gradual deceleration either, the time is just too small, and the universe too large, etc...
It's a very clear logic contradiction, as we know the universe did not do that, (either one of those things) and especially since it is still supposed to be speeding up in that expansion or acceleration still supposedly, etc...
The numbers and the data (and the pictures), etc, do not match, and as of right now, there is absolutely no evidence at all for the BB, age of the universe maybe, "maybe", but not the BB, etc...
If it as only as old as they say it is, but is also the size they say it must be (and we are using the "lower number estimates", etc) then it could not have all started out as a single singularity, or from one single origin point, etc, but would have to have started already laid or spread out already, etc, if it is only as old as the current orthodoxy insists that it is, etc, because it just cannot be otherwise, not unless it is much, much, much (and did I say "much"), anyway, much, much older than they currently say it is, because only then, can any kind of BB, even be remotely possible at this point, etc...
I need to do more research as to just exactly what point in time the BB was first suggested/thought of, and what amount of data they had at that time, but I can absolutely guarantee you that they thought the universe was a lot smaller at that time, and it is outdated now due to how large we now know it at least has to be at least now, etc...
And at risk of starting to repeat myself all over again now, I'm going to stop there for now, ok...
This is not all I know or have to say about it (the universe) either, etc, but there is "more", etc...
Problem is a lot of them call for a drastic change in thinking, and maybe even complete desolution of some current models, etc...
God Bless!
In these two posts let me list the things you don’t understand.Ironically, how they had to come up with the "at least 200 times larger theory", is because they have absolutely no evidence of a single center origin point, ironically, etc, which is admitting they currently have no evidence of or for that really, etc...
Then the likely size of it causes problems for the only 13.8 billion years old theory, if there was that BB that they have absolutely no evidence of or for, ironically, etc...
For the age to be correct, which it could be, then it would have had to already been laid out already, and the universe started that way, but that is the only way, etc...
And if the age is a lot, lot older, then there could have been a BB "maybe", but that is the only way, etc... But currently, there is absolutely no evidence for a BB, etc...
I can also tell you a few of my theories about the supposed accelerating expansion around us/out from us, as the center, as well, but I doubt you want to hear about that, etc...
God Bless!
It's still expanding. Otherwise, no red shift.It had to expand very, very rapidly, like almost beyond belief rapidly, to be from just one single origin point (single singularity) in that amount of time, and then nearly halted all of the suddenly
Yes. This explains why the cosmic microwave background radiation is the same in any direction. As in your analogy of the Earth's surface, two-dimensional beings living on a surface that was on a three-dimensional sphere, would have difficulty visualizing the inflation of that sphere to its present size.(1) As has been explained to you on numerous occasions in the past there is no “center”.
Where is the center on the earth’s surface?
The center can be any arbitrary point on the surface, there is no “true” center.
On the surface of a balloon which is being inflated each point on the surface is moving way from every other point.
To extend this analogy to the BB model, the BB occurred everywhere in a very small volume not at a central location.
The BB did not occur at a singularity as quantum mechanics prevents this.
If you don't believe there was a 'big bang' -- the sudden beginning of this Universe, blooming forth even faster than the speed of light at the beginning it's thought in the mainstream theory... -- then not believing in that sudden creation of the universe, from nothing...There was no Big Bang…
Yes! If it did not, that would have been pretty surprising at this point. It seems like every significant upgrade in a telescope leads to surprising new discoveries, so that now I've come to expect surprises each time a major new telescope leap arrives.Gee... Everyone... Is the James Webb Space Telescope going to change all our perspectives on the universe???
Gee... Everyone... Is the James Webb Space Telescope going to change all our perspectives on the universe???
'cosmic evolution is a farce'? Really?Did I hear her say -- at 14:11 -- it describes how the universe has EVOLVED?
For those of you who have argued against me so strenuously that cosmic evolution is a farce -- despite the fact that I showed that picture from Harvard -- Dr Becky says otherwise.
I appreciate the info, really I do, but are you saying the universe did not start out as a single singularity approximately 13.7 billion years ago...?In these two posts let me list the things you don’t understand.
I am going to try to make it as simple as possible for you without going into the mathematics and physics in any great detail as it will only confuse you.
(1) As has been explained to you on numerous occasions in the past there is no “center”.
Where is the center on the earth’s surface?
The center can be any arbitrary point on the surface, there is no “true” center.
On the surface of a balloon which is being inflated each point on the surface is moving way from every other point.
To extend this analogy to the BB model, the BB occurred everywhere in a very small volume not at a central location.
The BB did not occur at a singularity as quantum mechanics prevents this.
(2) When we refer to the expansion of the universe it is the expansion of the observable universe not the entire universe.
Therefore your calculations in your first post are rubbish; the universe hasn’t expanded from 0 to 18 trillion 400 billion light years.
A photon can only travel at the speed of light; in the time a photon has travelled 13.7 billion light years, the universe has expanded to a diameter of around 92 billion light years.
The calculation is not trivial as it requires to measure the curvature of the universe, Hubble’s constant and the density parameters for matter, radiation, dark energy and redshift all of which are obtained from the cosmic radiation background.
(3) The expansion of the universe is not limited to the speed of light, in fact in the very early universe expansion was many orders of magnitude greater so every point in the universe was causally connected to every other point which allowed the universe to cool down uniformly and be flat.
(4) You seem to think that the BB can be described like an explosion in space where galaxies are like shrapnel moving in space which should eventually slowdown.
Unless influenced by gravity galaxies are stationary in space-time and are being carried along by the space-time expansion like a surfer on a wave.
The conservation of energy doesn’t apply to objects being carried by space-time hence there is nothing contradictory about the expansion of the universe accelerating.
As mentioned previously the BB is not an explosion at some point in space-time it occurred everywhere.
(5) Your claim there is no evidence for the BB is willful ignorance.
While no one was around to see the BB the most obvious effect is the cosmic radiation background which cannot be explained by any other model including expansion models such as the steady state theory.
(6) Another piece of willful ignorance is to try to push this single center point nonsense to claim cosmologists are clueless with regards to the size of the entire universe.
In point (2) I mentioned the curvature of the universe can be calculated by utilizing the angular dimensions of structures in the cosmic radiation background.
This allows the total density parameter Ωₒ to be determined.
If Ωₒ = 1 the entire universe is infinitely large.
Currently the value is around Ωₒ = 1.0 ± 0.12 making it very large.
(7) Finally a general comment.
Your posts confirm the personal incredulity fallacy or the “I don’t understand it so it must be wrong" as you haven't offered any points which even makes sense.
I appreciate the info, really I do, but are you saying the universe did not start out as a single singularity approximately 13.7 billion years ago...?
Could it have been in a hot dense state starting out everywhere, without the need for it to have expanded, very, very fast at first, from a certain "somewhere"...?Not necessarily. The physics describing the Big Bang (GR) breaks down at extremely high density when quantum effects should be operative. Those classical equations of cosmology do have a singularity in them, but what that really tells us is that the equations have failed and we need more. In an infinite universe (if it is infinite) the "singularity" would still be infinite in space and then it would get bigger.
What we can say is that...
The whole Universe was in a hot dense state...
and then it expanded. Point singularities are not needed.
Could it have been in a hot dense state starting out everywhere, without the need for it to have expanded, very, very fast at first, from a certain "somewhere"...?
Could it not have just started out very hot and dense, and just cooled down, as it slowed down, because that is just what the universe is doing/has been doing since it started...?If it hadn't expanded it would still be hot and dense, instead of not-so-hot and not-so-dense.
It didn't expands from a "somewhere", but rather from everywhere. ("Everywhere" may be limited in spatial extent, or infinite. That is not yet clear and may never be clear.)
Because I have a loose theory that the universe has always been growing, and moving, but not necessarily expanding, etc...?Could it not have just started out very hot and dense, and just cooled down, because that is just what the universe is doing/has been doing since it started...?
QV please: My Cosmic Evolution Challenge'cosmic evolution is a farce'? Really?
Could it not have just started out very hot and dense, and just cooled down, as it slowed down, because that is just what the universe is doing/has been doing since it started...?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?