David Levy

Thanks again With regards to our visible universe; Based on the redshift we know that further galaxies are moving away from us. Therefore, theoretically, every day we are losing matter from our visible universe. So, if we claim that the energy density of the visible universe should be the same in the future than we have to find the real answer for that new mass/energy ASAP.

Thanks Now it is fully clear to me. So you claim that the current cosmological constant is the same at any size of the universe. Therefore, the energy density of the universe should be the same - today, 13 Billion years ago and in the next 100 billion years. Based on this constant we can find that the total mass energy of the early universe is significantly lower than our time universe. However, in the same token we can claim that in the future the total mass energy of the universe (let's say 10 billion years from now) should be significantly higher than our current total mass/energy. So, what is the source for this new energy? I had the impression that based on the BBT, no new mass/ energy can be generated. Is it feasible?

Sorry if I have disappointed you. I have full appreciation for your support! You have actually opened the door for higher cosmology knowledge to me.

This is very clear to me. That is correct. I do not even try to distinguish between Energy from matter to the Energy from radiation. Energy is Energy. It should be clear to all of us. At least we both agree that the Estimated total mass-energy (in Joules) of the observable universe is 4 × 10^69 Yes, I fully agree with you. The % of matter and the % of radiation is different in the past than it is today I also agree that the density parameter for matter changes as a function of z different than radiation. So, please go ahead and set the calculation. Do you know for sure the % of matter and the % of radiation at the early Universe (when its temp was 3000K)? If you do, than it should be easy to calculate the equivalent density of early universe. Somehow, I do believe that no one really know this percentage. So, it is quite clear to me that it is an impossible mission - You are welcome to prove the opposite if you wish! However, your explanation (about the % of matter and the % of radiation is different in the past than it is today) has no real effect on my calculations. I didn't try to distinguish between the different densities and then try to calculate the equivalent density. There is no need for that. I have focused on the total mass/ energy of the universe. Therefore, I have used the total Estimated mass-energy of the observable universe, as an indication for the total mass energy in the early universe. I have assumed that there is no change in the total mass-energy between the current time and the early universe. Although it is quite clear that the Universe is losing energy over time - I will elaborate about it later on. So actually, the total mass- energy of the early universe should be higher than our current universe. But even if it is the same, I have proved that even this minimal total mass/ energy can't support the expansion. If you estimate that the total mass/energy of the early universe should be lower than our Universe - than please go ahead and prove it.

What do you mean by: "mass density of the full universe"? Do you mean: mass/energy of the full universe? I have used the mass/energy of the full visible Universe, which is already given in Joules. (So I didn't have to convert it to joules by myself) In the following article: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html It is stated that: 3 × 1052 - Estimated mass (in kilograms) of the observable universe. 4 × 1069 - Estimated total mass-energy (in Joules) of the observable universe. Why do you claim that the total mass/energy in the early Universe should be different from the current Universe? Based on the BBT, no new energy or mass could be created after the BBT. So if it is different, than in the past the mass/energy must be higher than our current time. That actually gives even higher confidence to my calculations. Please - if you think that in the past it was different (I assume that you want to prove that it was lower...), than please prove it by showing your calculations. How could it be that new mass/energy had been created after the BBT? This is a key message. However, radiation is energy by definition. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we measure the energy of the particles or the energy of radiation which creates the particles. Energy is Energy. However, I would expect that during the conversion from radiation to particles, some energy will be lost. Please also be aware that those particles represents less than 5% of the total Universe mass... Therefore, In the past, the total Mass/energy must be higher than the current Mass/energy. Hence, do you agree now that my calculation is fully correct?

Sorry. This formula doesn't contradict my calculation. "An expression for the critical density is found by assuming Λ to be zero (as it is for all basic Friedmann universes) and setting the normalised spatial curvature, k, equal to zero. When the substitutions are applied to the first of the Friedmann equations we find: The density parameter (useful for comparing different cosmological models) is then defined as: Omega = P / Pc As you can see, Omega represents the ratio between the density to critical density. It has no effect on my calculation!!! So, it is clear (to me) that: A. The density of the early Universe (based on the Visible Universe) is: 4 × 1069 / 2.54 * 1069 m3 = 1.57 Joules/ m3 B. The density of the early Universe (based on the whole Universe) is: 1.57 x 37.037 Joules/ m3 = 58.148 Joules/ m3 Do you agree with A? If no, Why? If yes, why you do not agree with B? If you still don't agree, please let me know what should be the density based on your calculations?

Thanks Your reply isn't fully clear to me. You claim that the following calculated density of the early Universe (based on the whole Universe) is incorrect: 1.57 x 37.037 Joules/ m3 = 58.148 Joules/ m3 So, let me start by asking the following: Do you agree that the density of that early Universe (based on the Visible Universe) is: 4 × 1069 / 2.54 * 1069 m3 = 1.57 Joules/ m3 What is the source for this mathematical formula? In your explanation about the density (earlier) you didn't mention it at all. Why suddenly it pop up? Is it just because that the results are different from your expectations? Can you please explain how shall we use it? Would you kindly set the calculation, or let me know what should be the expected density based on the whole Universe mass/energy?

Mordred Just a simple question - Please... Do you see any error in my calculation? The sun will not fall over our head if my calculations are correct. Maximum - WE will get some sort of reward from the science community...

Dear Mordred Please try to answer directly. Do you see any error in my calculations? If so, please highlight the errors. If you don't see any error - then you have to agree that the expansion can't work!

Well It's not an issue of "know", "believe" or "little common sense"... It is a simple mathematics. The science gave us basic information about the early science and mathematical formulas. It is quite simple to calculate the density and the critical density. Somehow, based on those formulas and information it is clear that the expansion can't work. We have to ask ourselves – A. Why a simple calculation had proved that the expansion is not feasible? B. How could it be that the whole science had missed this critical issue? Therefore, there are three options - 1. There are errors in the basic information. So, for example, the value of H/H_0 which is considered to be 22289.979 (by WAMP) should be quite higher. 2. There are errors in the formulas. So, for example, a different mathematical formula should be used to calculate the critical density. 3. Yes, it makes sense. The expansion can't work because it is an unrealistic hypothetical theory. Therefore, the science should look for better explanation for what we see.

Thanks for the support. I do appreciate it. O.K. Let's agree that the maximal value of the critical density of the early universe ((when its temp was 3000K) is 0.421 j/m^3 However I have proved that the density of that early Universe is: 4 × 1069 / 2.54 * 1069 m3 = 1.57 Joules/ m3 This is based on the total mass/energy of the visible Universe. Never the less, it is clear that the total mass mass/energy of the whole Universe should be higher. Based on the following article the current size of the Universe is 46 BLY. http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html "Thus, while scientists might see a spot that lay 13.8 billion light-years from Earth at the time of the Big Bang, the universe has continued to expand over its lifetime. Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away." Therefore, the volume of the current universe is bigger by 37.037 times from the visible Universe: X = R3 (radius of whole Universe) / R3 (radius of the Visible Universe) = ( R(radius of whole Universe) / R(radius of the Visible Universe) 3 = (46 / 13.8) 3 = 37.037 Hence, the density of the early universe based on the total mass/energy of the whole universe is: 1.57 x 37.037 Joules/ m3 = 58.148 Joules/ m3 That value is higher by 138 times than the calculated critical density for that time – which is: 0.421 Joules/ m3. As follow: 58.138 / 0.421 = 138 Please also be aware that the information about the mass/energy of the visible universe had been taken from the following site: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html I'm not sure if it is fully updated. Just few years ago, the science have considered that the total galaxies in the universe were only 100 or 200 Billion. Now they already claim that it is about 500 Billion. They also had no clue that 50% of the stars are located outside the galaxies. So, there is good chance that the total mass/ energy of the visible universe is higher than what it is stated at that article. In any case, even without this help, the density of the early universe is higher by at least 138 times than the critical density. So, do you agree that it is quite clear that the Expansion can't work at the early Universe?

Thanks for the update. So, if I understand you correctly: The critical density formula is: So, lets set the following: Pc = K * H2 K = 3 / (8 * 3.14 * G) So, K could be considered as constant. Now you claim that: Today's H is 67.9 km/sec/Mpc Based on that H, the value of the TODAY critical density is "If you calculate this out it will work out to roughly to " Therefore, Pc (for today) = K * H2 * = K * (67.9)2 = 6 * 10-10 J/m3 H then is 67.9 km/s/Mpc* 23257.149 Pc (when z=1100) = K * H2 * = K * (67.9 * 23257)2 = K * (67.9)2 * (23257)2 J/m3 However: I have proved that: K * (67.9)2 = 6 * 10-10 J/m3 Therefore: Pc (when z=1100) = K * H2 * = K * (67.9 * 23257)2 = ( K * (67.9)2 ) * (23257)2 = 6 * 10-10 * (23257)2 J/m3 Hence: the updated maximal critical density is: Pc (when z=1100) = 6 * 10-10 * (23257)2 = 6 * 10-10 * 5.3 * 108 = 3.18 * 10-1 Joules/ m3 Do you agree???

I hope that I have understood Mordred explanation correctly. If so, my mathematical calculation should be perfectly O.K. In any case; Mordred - I would mostly appreciate to get your feedback. Do you see any mathematical error in my calculation?

Thanks That is fully clear. We must use the correct value of Hubbles constant So, lets use the maximal value of H: Z=1100 H=23257.149 H/H_O age 000368 Gy meaning H then compared to H today H= 23257. = 2.3 104 Based on the following formula for critical density: The current (today) value of H is 1. Z=0(now) H=1.0 age 13.7872206 Gy So, the impact of the new maximal H is: H2 = (2.3 104)2 = 5.3 * 108 Therefore, the updated maximal critical density is: 6 * 10-10 * H2 Joules/ m3 = 6 * 10-10 * 5.3 * 108 = 3.18 * 10-1 Joules/ m3 So, that value represents the maximal critical density. However, based on my calculation: The density of early Universe when its temp was 3000K, is: 4 × 1069 / 2.54 * 1069 m3 = 1.57 Joules/ m3 Therefore, even now the density of early Universe is higher than the critical maximal density. Please also be aware that I have only used the total Mass/energy of the visible universe, So the real density of the whole Universe should be even higher than 1.57 Joules/ m3. Hence, it is clear that even under the maximal conditions, the expansion can't take over. Do you agree?

Is there any possibility for us to verify - even a minor change, in our life time?

O.K. Let's set a brief calculation based on a valid information from "The physics of the Universe". One million light year = 9.4605284 × 1021 meters = about 1022 The Diameter of Eraly Universe was 40 Million light years. That means – a radius of 20 Miliion Light years. So the volume of this radius is: R3 * / 3.14 = (20 * 1022) 3 / 3.14 = 8/3.14 * 1069 m3 = 2.54 * 1069 m3 The estimated total mass-energy of the observable Universe is: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html 3 × 1052 - Estimated mass (in kilograms) of the observable universe. 4 × 1069 - Estimated total mass-energy (in Joules) of the observable universe. So, if we set the calculation based on Joules – The density of early Universe when its temp was 3000K, is: 4 × 1069 / 2.54 * 1069 m3 = 1.57 Joules/ m3 This value is significantly higher than the critical density of 6 * 10-10 Joules/ m3 Therefore, it is clear that the Early universe can't expand!!! Do you agree?

Thanks Mordred I do appreciate you answer. Let me focus on just one issue which you have mentioned - Density It's not clear to me how the science calculate the real density of the early Universe. Based on my brief verification, the real mass in the universe is equivalent to at least 2,000 billion galaxies. Never the less, if we add the effect of the dark mass and dark energy it is equivalent to 40,000 billion galaxies. By dividing that mass to the size of the early universe, we can easily extract the density of the early universe. However, I'm not sure that the science have used this simple calculation. With regards to the dark mass/dark energy - This is the most interesting issue. In the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe They ignore complitly the effect of the dark mass and dark energy in the early Universe. How could it be that the dark mass/dark energy which covers more than 95% of the total universe mass is almost totally neglected? However, it is stated that: "If the energy density of dark energy were negative or the universe were closed, then it would be possible that the expansion of the universe would reverse and the universe would contract towards a hot, dense state. This is a required element of oscillatory universe scenarios, such as the cyclic model, although a Big Crunch does not necessarily imply an oscillatory universe. Current observations suggest that this model of the universe is unlikely to be correct, and the expansion will continue or even accelerate." But, why this dark energy density is not part of the calculation for the early Universe? What about the dark mass density? So, let me ask the following questions: 1. Do you agree that the real mass of the universe could be equivalent to about 2,000 billion galaxies? (Actually, it should be much more than that – based on the efficiency of the star forming process. As a star forming process in the early universe is based on random activity, It seems to me that it is almost as winning the lottery. 1 to 100, 1 to 1000, 1 to one million or more. In this case to form just one star, a total atoms of 100 or even one million stars might be needed…) That could increase dramatically the density of the early Universe. Never the less, for this discussion, let's assume that it is only 50% efficiency. 2. Do you agree that the total mass/dark mass/dark energy could be equivalent to about 40,000 billion galaxies? 3. Did we try to calculate the real density of the early universe based on that total mass/dark enery/dark mass?

Thank you both The expansion by itself is quite clear to me. However, I still have difficulties to understand the starting point of the expansion. It is stated: So, with regards to the starting point - At the moment that the size of the universe was only 40 MLY, and it includes the whole mass of the Universe - including Dark matter and dark energy, and it was a hot plasma. Did we try to make any sort of calculation to verify the gravity force of this early Universe? This is the key issue. Gravity causes contraction not expansion. So, what was the real gravity at that early universe? How can we know for sure that the expansion overcome on the gravity of that early universe? I have tried to set a brief calculation of the expected total mass/energy of the early universe as follow: - The current number of galaxies in the Universe - about 500 Billion. - Number of stars outside the galaxies - at least the same number as the whole stars in the galaxies. Therefore, the total mass in the Universe is equivalent to about 1,000 billion galaxies. However, there are also free atoms in the open space. That might be correlated to the following question: What is the chance for an early atom to be placed in a star? In other words - what is the efficiency of the early star forming process? If it is only 50% than at least 50% of the atoms in the universe are located in the open space. Therefore, the requested mass of that early Universe should be equivalent to 2,000 billion galaxies. However, this actually represent only 4.6% of the whole mass/dark matter/ dark energy of the universe. So, the early universe includes a mass/dark matter/ dark energy which is equivalent to over than 40,000 billion galaxies Hence, what was the real gravity when whole of this mass/dark matter/ dark energy was concentrated at the size of only 40 Mly? How could it be that the expansion had the power to overcome on that incredible gravity? Sorry if my analogies isn't fully correct.

Sorry again that I ask too difficult questions, but I see two different types of expansions. The first one is as you have described: When the universe size was 40 Mly, it was "as the hot plasma expanded and cooled small variations in density caused some areas to start to collapse into slightly denser clouds". But this kind of expansion might not be correlated with the second expansion which is based on the CMB redshift. It is stated clearly that this expansion (the second one) only works on the empty space between the clusters. Therefore, technically, the "real" expansion (which is based on the CMB redshift) can't even start its operation while the Universe is hot as plasma. (However, it doesn't contradict the idea that there was some sort of expansion). Don't you think that real expansion can only start after the formation of stars, galaxies and especially clusters (Just after 300 Million years). In other words, how can we claim that the expansion (which is based on CMB redshift) had started while the Universe was plasma, while we also claim that it only works on the empty space between the clusters? (and those clusters had been formed just after another 300 Million years)

Thanks Sorry, but please let me know if I understand you correctly. 1. Is it correct that the expansion had started when the size of the universe was about 40 Mly? 2. If so, can we consider it as one cluster? (Let's call it Early Cluster) 3. What came first? 3.1. Is it the process of early cluster growing in size? (So the expansion in space can only start after this early cluster had grown to a critical size) 3.2. Is it a process of dividing this Early Clusters into billions seeds of clusters? (So the expansion affects the open space between those seeds, while the clusters seeds also grow in time).

Thanks That is an excellent overview from the first moment of the BB. Well, I had the impression that the main phase of the expansion is fully correlated with the CMB redshift. Based on the redshift value of 1100, this expansion phase had started when the Universe temperature was - 3000K, its age was – about 400 Million years and its size was 40 Mly. Don't you agree with that? http://www.phy.duke....~kolena/cmb.htm "Therefore, the drop in the CMB temperature by a factor of 1100 (= 3000 K/2.73 K) indicates an expansion of the universe by a factor of 1100 from the moment of decoupling until now". In any case, clusters aren't subject to the expansion: So, if the total size of the clusters (side by side) is much bigger than the 40 Mly, than how the expansion could start at that point (40 Mly)? Unless, you claim that all the clusters in the universe has a total size of only 40 MLY. But this might be incorrect, as our cluster by itself has a diameter of 10 Mly.

One more question: In our local group cluster there are more than 54 galaxies (For the calculation - Let's assume that there are about 50). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group "The Local Group comprises more than 54 galaxies" "The Local Group covers a diameter of 10 Mly (3.1 Mpc)" However, there are about 500 Billion galaxies in our universe: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/06/500-billion-a-universe-of-galaxies-some-older-than-milky-way.html "500 Billion --A Universe of Galaxies: Some Older than Milky Way" So, if we use our cluster as a typical one, then we can calculate that there could be about 10 billion clusters in the Universe with a similar diameter of 10 Mly. 500 Billion / 50 = 10 Billion With regards to the expansion: It is stated that the expansion had started when the size of the Universe was 40 Mly and its temp was 3000K. It is also stated that the expansion only works in the open space between the clusters. Therefore, as we go back on time, the clusters should be closer to each other. Eventually, there will be no open space between the clusters and all the clusters will be next to each other. In this moment, the size of all the clusters (side by side) should be: 10 Billion (Clusters) x 10 Mly (typical cluster size). Let's call it - Mega Custer. In 40 Mly we can place about 64 typical local group clusters (10Mly for each one). Just to make it easy – let's assume that we can set up to 100 typical local group clusters in a diameter of in 40 Mly. (I use it as a worst case scenario) Therefore, we can assume that the size of that mega cluster is almost 100 Million times bigger than the size of the Universe when the expansion had started (40 Mly) 10 Billion / 100 = 100 Million This might contradict the basic idea that the expansion had started when the size of the universe was only 40 Mly. We know that the expansion can only works on the open space between the clusters. Therefore, technically, there is no way for the expansion to start before all the clusters in the Universe are located side by side. In other words, the starting point of the expansion should be when the size of the universe was bigger by 100 Million times than the 40Mly. So, how can we explain this contradiction? How can we claim that the expansion had started when the size of the universe was 40Mly, while we see clearly that the minimum size of the universe without any open space (all the clusters are located side by side) is 100 Million times bigger than that?

My efforts? I was not involved in that research. Thanks I couldn't find in those articles if there is a confirmation that the Universe is not expanding uniformly

In the following article (from 2008) it is stated that the Universe is not expanding uniformly: http://www.universetoday.com/19509/the-universe-is-not-expanding-uniformly/ It is also stated: “We expected the expansion to become more uniform on increasingly larger scales, but that’s not what we found.” "If the work he and others are doing is confirmed, it will require a major revision in the way we think the universe came into being and how it evolved.” So, the questions are as follow: 1. After about 8 years, did we find a confirmation for that work? 2. If so, how it could affect the evolvement of the Universe?

Thanks for the homework. However, I have full appreciation for all your knowledge and support so I do not wish to argue on subject which isn't fully clear to me. The support helped me to develop deeper understanding how the universe really works. There is no need for Inflation, Expansion, Dark matter or even Dark energy to understand how it works. It is as simple as the Darwin Idea for the evolving life on Earth. Actually, there is high similarity between the evolvement of life and the evolvement of the Universe. Few hundred years ago, people believed that some sort of big bang had started the versatility of life on Earth. Darwin had showed us the simple way. He claimed that by giving enough time, all the versatility of life could be evolved from a single ameba. In the same token, I have found that all the versatility of our universe could start from just one galaxy. Darwin didn't explain how this ameba had been created. I can't explain how this first galaxy had been created - it could be by the same phenomenon which we call BBT. However, once it's there, the Universe had evolved to what we see today. But time is needed - very long time. Actually, we could visit this Alfa universe, but it is forbidden to join the ride with even a fraction of information about the BBT. In any case, based on that deep understanding, I have set long expectation list about the Universe. One item in the list is that there is a nearby star which its age is over 20 B Years. (According to Strange, that could give an indication that the BBT is incorrect) Every new discovery in the last few years meets my expectation list by 100%. I do not need to adjust this deep understanding, as the science is doing it with the BBT from time to time. So, if you wish, I'm ready to share with you some items from this list. If you wish, I'm ready to discuss about it in a closed environment - so it will not be open to public. If you wish, I will keep it to myself. Thanks again