David Levy

No, I disagree. The following is 2D: drive through chunnels The following is 3D: spelunk through the middle However, once you spelunk through the middle and continue more and more (in the same direction), you will get to the surface of the earth. if you continue with the same momentum/direction than you will find yourself out of the Earth. Edge!

If the Universe has three dimensions than by definition it has to have edge. If the Universe is hypersphere than it is O.K. to assume that it has no edge. But, you can't have them both in one Universe. Please choose one of the following options: 1. The Universe has no edge; therefore it has more than three dimensions. 2. The Universe has no edge, but it has only three dimensions, therefore it is infinite. 3. The Universe has three dimensions - it is not infinite - therefore it must have an edge. 4. ?

Do you claim that the Universe is a hypersphere? Why don't you like the idea that the Universe should have an edge?

We are discussing about the Volume. (Not the surface) Surface - has only two dimensions.

If it has a size, than it should have an edge. If it has no edge, then it is infinite. So simple.

How could it be? Let's assume that we are located at about 5 Bly from the edge of the Universe. So, in one side we should see that there are no more galaxies beyond 5 Bly, while on the other side we should see up to about 13 Bly. Hence, why do you claim that every point is at the center? What is the size of the whole universe?

http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html "Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years." So, the radius of the whole Universe is 46 BLY. Let's divide it to the following segments: 0 – 12 Bly 12 – 24 Bly 24 – 36 Bly 36 – 48 Bly If R = 12 Bly Than 0 – 12 Bly = R 0 – 24 Bly = 2R 0 – 36 Bly = 3R 0 – 48 Bly = 4R Therefore: 0 – 48 Bly = The whole Universe = 4R 0 – 12 Bly = The core of the Universe = R 36 – 48 Bly = Edge of the Universe 0 – 36 Bly = Not at the edge of the Universe. The Volume of the Core of the Universe is ref. to: R^3 The Volume of the whole Universe is: (4R)^3 = 64R^3 The Volume of not at the Edge of the Universe is (3R)^3 = 27R^3 The Volume of the Edge of the Universe is 64R^3 - 27R^3 = 37R^3 So, the chance to be at the core of the Universe is 1 : 64 = 0.015 = 1.5% The chance to be at the Edge of the Universe is 37 : 64 = 0.58 = 58% The chance to be not at the Edge of the Universe is 27 : 64 = 0.42 = 42% What can we learn from this simple statistical verification?

How do we know that?

What is the meaning of option C? Let's see again A. and B A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe So, A + B = 100% However, you claim. Let's ignore the 100% options of the conservation of Energy/Mass and try to look outside. Where outside? It seems to me as someone had lost a key in the ocean, but he is looking for it at the beach because he doesn't know how to swim. Never the less, let's assume that there is something outside like... - 101% What shall we understand from this message? Can we understand that currently the science don't have enough information how to bypass the paradox? Therefore, more research is needed. If so, than currently, the science has no real answer to the paradox. Hence, the paradox is real! It is a simple logic problem. That is correct. That is the source of the paradox. We have to take a decision based on what we know (not - on what we don't know). Currently - based on what we know - there is a paradox. You had confirmed it. That is also correct. There are only two options A or B. A - There is paradox. B - New Energy/mass creation So simple. It is clear that those two options are catastrophic to the Modern science. Therefore, they try to bypass the problem and look outside the 100%. But please - we can't ignore the reality. Yes, there is an answer! Based on our current theories - We have a problem. Why it is so difficult to admit that there is a problem in our current approach? Sorry. I don't see a correlation between this example and the paradox

O.K. Thanks for the support with regards to CMB. It's required a wide world of knowledge. In any case, we have started our discussion about the paradox. The CMB by itself is not a solution for the paradox. It can't eliminate the problem! The paradox is a pure logical problem. We must deal with the roots of the paradox. Therefore, we can't continue to claim - It isn't our problem.. We don't know...We also don't care... We have the CMB... We know that the steady state is incorrect... It is requested from the science community to evaluate all the possibilities of that paradox under the following requirements: A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe C. ? Each option should be verified - carefully and logically, (even if there are 10,000 options). If at the end of this process, we will find that the paradox is still applicable, then: The science should understand that something is terribly wrong in the current approch.

Mordred Do I recall you correctly? Does the CMB represent a range of redshift Values?

Thanks With regards the CMB: Is it correct that there is wide range of redshift values? If so, what is the Min and the Max levels which we have found in the CMB? How can we explain these variations? Would you kindly answer my questions with regards to the CMB' redshift and blackbody

I'm not sure about it as it is stated that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle "Hoyle died in 2001 never accepting the Big Bang theory" Yes, I did. I have never claimed that the steady state is fully correct. Never the less, that specific request should be perfectly O.K. That is also perfectly O.K. What do you mean by - Measured fact? Is it CMB? I disagree with that statement. You have told me (If I recall correctly) that the 1100 is just an average value of the redshift reflections. Is it correct? If so, the CMB should represent wide range of redshift Values Redshift by definition is an indication for a distance, or rate of increase distance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift "A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Another kind of redshift is cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth". Therefore, those redshift values could be an indication of the distance to the Light/radiation source. We can see a galaxy with a redshift of almost 11. This galaxy is located at a distance of over than 13 Bly away. Why a redshift of 50 or 100 can't represent a distance which is over than 20 Bly? Why a redshift of 1000 can't represent a distance which is over than 100 or 1000 Bly? If there is a redshift value which is close to 1500 in the CMB, why it can't represent a very far end distance. (almost infinite?..) It is also black body. For quite long time the science had believed that - this is perfectly O.K. However, now they do understand that this Black body isn't feasible for our current Universe Therefore, they have stated to assume that this black body is a reflection from the Universe when it was quite young. (400 Mly?) How can we proof that at this age the Universe was a black body? Is only assumption or some sort of speculation? So, do we have a solid proof for that? I'm not sure that we do understand the real meaning of CMB.

Dear Mordred You should be proud of this discussion. It's a simple issue of science. You have confirmed the paradox under this restriction. This paradox could be an indication that Fred Hoyle approach with regards to mass creation was correct. As stated: ..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing." Somehow, we do not appreciate correctly the real contribution of Fred Hoyle to modern science. Do you agree with that?

Sorry strange You didn't answer the following question: With regards to "A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe - Therefore - There is a paradox" Do you agree that under A there is only one option? If not, please specify all the other options. In any case that you don't know: How can you argue about something which you don't know???

Thanks After so long time... Why it was so difficult for you to share with me the other options? Instead of insulting and just claim that my understanding is very poor, why can't you just answer to the point? I will keep asking till I get a valid answer. So, let's go back to the following options: A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe - Therefore - There is a paradox B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - Therefore - There is new Energy/mass creation With regards to "A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe - Therefore - There is a paradox" Do you agree that under A there is only one option? If not, please specify the options. With regards to B You claim that some of the options are as follow: "B1. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is new Energy/mass creation" "B2. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is a decrease in Energy/mass" "B3. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - But Energy/mass stays constant [on average] anyway for some other reason" With regards to "B1. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is new Energy/mass creation" Yes, I fully agree, this is a feasible option. With regards to B2 - The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is a decrease in Energy/mass" As the Universe increase in its size due to the expansion, and as Fred Hoyle had stated: ..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing." There is no possibility that there will be a decrease in the Energy/mass. Therefore it is irrelevant option. With regards to "B3 - The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - But Energy/mass stays constant [on average] anyway for some other reason" What does it mean - "for some other reason". Please specify. Otherwise, there is no meaning for this statement. It is not even close to science. You can do better than that. Please try. In any case, based on the same explanation for B2. In order to keep the universe's density from decreasing while the size of the universe increase, then the Energy/Mass should also be increased. Therefore, this option is irrelevant. Would you kindly offer all the options so I can eliminate them one by one?

How could it be that for a simple question of: Does the conservation of Energy/Mass hold for the Universe or not, there are more than two options? I had the impression that there must be only two options: Yes or No. However, you claim that there are more than two options. So let see: One option is - Yes, other option is - No, and then there are many more: Maybe, Perhaps, Could be, Might be, Don't know... Did I understand it correctly? This isn't the main issue of this thread, however, let me highlight the following: Why there are only two options? BBT or steady state. Why not more than two options? How could it be that for a simple question of Yes or No, there are more options then two, while for a whole theory of the Universe - there are only two options? Why 50 years ago, there were only two options on the table? Why can't we assume that some ideas of the BBT are corrected as well as other ideas from the Steady state? Why it is some sort of package deal? One or the other. How could it be that a discovery of a CMB had eliminated completely the whole key ideas by Fred Hoyle? In any case, Why, when it comes to the Steady state or BBT - It was perfectly O.K. for the science to request only one option, while, when it comes to a simple question of Yes or No, then there are more than two options?

Thanks That was fully clear to me. Therefore, you have already confirmed that if the conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe, than we have the following paradox: 1. The cosmologic constant must be constant 2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant If you wish, you can change your confirmation. However, So, currently, the science doesn't know for sure if the conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe or not. Therefore, we need to understand what could be the outcome in case that the conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe. In this case, do you agree that Universe should increase its Energy/Mass as the Universe expands? As a direct outcome – There is new Energy/mass creation in the Universe. This actually confirms Fred Hoyle expectation, as It is stated: https://en.wikipedia...dy_State_theory "..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing." Therefore, in order to conclude this explanation: There are two options: A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe - Therefore - There is a paradox B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - Therefore - There is new Energy/mass creation Please chose one! A or B Never the less, those two options are totally unaccepted by the Science. (It is like asking a person - how do you want to die. chose two options...) Therefore, the science has decided to claim - We don't know... (Which is quite logical based on the difficulties for the science.) Hence, by assuming that they don't know, then they don't have to deal with the outcome. (Well, I also assume that this might be the answer from any logical person which is going to lose his life.) However, I would expect that the science should take responsibility. They can't just hide behind – "We don't know…"

Dear Strange The Paradox is real. It had been confirmed by Mordred. If it is difficult for you to accept the paradox, then I can't help any more.

Thanks It is your first feedback about the paradox. So, if I understand you correctly, there is small possibility that the total energy of the Universe is not constant. Hence, there is small chance that the Energy/mass should increase as the Universe expands? In this case, the direct outcome must be a new energy/mass creation. That is correlated with the message from Mordred: So, if there is new Energy/mass creation - then there is no need for paradox. Can we agree about it? However, if you insist that there is no new Energy/mass creation, than you have to deal with the paradox. So, please choose one option. Paradox, or new Energy/Mass creation. You can't just hold the stick at both sides at the same time. Left or right. We have to make it clear. How can you claim that we know how the Universe works, but on this issue suddenly it is not clear to us, so we can't say what is correct. If you can't say, than please don't say. Why do you argue about something which you don't know if it is correct?

Do you understand that based on the current mainstream, in the same universe, there must be two contradicted constants at the same time as follow: 1. The cosmologic constant must be constant 2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant Now, do you see the paradox? If not, how can you explain those two contradicted constants? Do you mean that lake of knowledge helps to bypass the paradox? Yes, mathematical model and calculations are very important for our understanding. So, why do you reject the following mathematical study on Friedmann equation? As stated in the following article: http://www.sciencedi...70269314009381# It is stated clearly that they "..studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation" Based on this study they have predicted "an infinite age of our universe." Why you do not agree with their prediction? Do you see any error in their calculations?

Well, I didn't specify a specific time frame of the expansion as a source for the error. I have stated that due to the Paradox there must be an error in our understanding about the Universe. For example - we currently assume that the age of our Universe should be about 13.8 By. This article "predicts an infinite age of our universe". Hence, that by itself proves that my statement is correct. Therefore, the science community should understand that there is a problem with the current hypothetical theories. This understanding might open a door for a new era in cosmology world.

Please advice if the error could be related with Friedmann equation as follow: "..studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation" http://www.sciencedi...70269314009381# "It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe."

I hope that by now, we all understand the meaning of that paradox. However, what could be the source for this error?