David Levy

There is another reason why that conclusion is totally unrealistic. The mass of the sun is 332,900 Earth masses. In other words, the mass of the Earth is 0.000003 of the sun. Super-Neptune estimated as of 20–80 M⊕ (Earth Mass). Hence, its mass is 0.00006008 - 0.00024031 Sun mass. The question: How could it be that a planet in a size of Super Neptune, which is less than 0.00024 Sun mass, can have so severe impact on the Lithium quantity at that star? Hence, the idea that this star eats its super-Neptune planet is just ridicules.

Sorry, I disagree. It is clear evidence that the age of that star should be significantly higher than the expected 6 Billion years (Based on BBT). The science is forcing the evidence to meet this false theory - instead of the other way. Therefore their conclusion is totally wrong!!!

As usual, the science gets into wrong conclusion about the following evidence. http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-evidence-of-a-planet-eating-death-star Two new planets discovered… but there used to be three. . "When the team analysed the star's composition, they found four times more lithium than they expected for a star of its age – 6 billion years – along with evidence of a surplus of refractory elements: heat-resistant metals that are abundant in rocky planets. When the team analysed the star's composition, they found four times more lithium than they expected for a star of its age – 6 billion years – along with evidence of a surplus of refractory elements: heat-resistant metals that are abundant in rocky planets." So, if I understand it correctly, the total quantity of Lithium in that star is four times more than the expected quantity in a star at that age. So, why they do not consider an option that the age of the star is bigger than 6 Billion years? In order to get that amount of lithium the age of the star should be 24 Billion years (I assume). Well it is quite clear – that conclusion contradicts the age of the universe based on BBT. It could be a disaster for that false theory. (The age of a star in our neighborhood is bigger than the whole age of the universe!!!) So, in order to solve this contradiction, they have found great idea - "Scientists have found evidence of a planet-eating 'Death Star'" Sorry it is a severe mistake. What else is needed for the science to understand at last that the age of the universe is much more than 13.8 Billion years???

O.K If you don't like the words "oven" Let's see what is the meaning for black body model: "A widely used model of a black surface is a small hole in a cavity with walls that are opaque to radiation." It is also stated: "An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure" I have called it Oven. If you prefer we can call it "insulated enclosure" or "walls that are opaque to radiation" is perfectly the same. In any case, once we set the radiation in this insulated enclosure we get a black body signature. Therefore, the idea that a big bang can create a black body radiation is absolutely incorrect. Any bang can't be model by insulated enclosure. There are no walls to cover the radiation of that bang. The science may say that they have the mathematical proof for that bang modeling. I personally don't think that there is a way to set a bang as Black body. But, let's assume that they are correct and somehow, our scientists have proved the unproved issue by magic of math.. So, they proved that when the Universe was quite compact at age of 400 MY it achieved black body radiation. However, that was valid for a young and compact universe. Never the less, they can't say that it will be implemented also for infinite Universe. As for infinite universe they must use total different modeling. Therefore, it is forbidden just to add the word infinite to the hot dense and claim that it will behave the same. It won't work. They must set new modeling for infinity universe as there is huge different between hot dense and infinite hot dense. We can't just say - yes, we will add the Infinite and it will look the same. I think that the science has a severe mistake in this issue. The science have to understand the real meaning of Black Body. There is no Black body model for a bang. Not even for infinite bang. The science must work according the modeling. they can't just invent a special model for the Big bang without any real model for any sort of bang!!! There is another issue: If I understand it correctly, based on our math for finite universe it was proved that the radiation of the Universe at age of 400 MY was black body. O.K. lets assume that this is correct. How could it be that today after 13.4 million we still get the radiation from that moment? Why we do not get the radiation from the Universe when it was 13 BY, 10BY, 5BY, 1BY, one year or even this moment? I assume that the science have found a moment in the Universe (by math) which could create a black body radiation and they want to keep it forever. This is a severe mistake. Conclusion - If the science think that a big bang can create a black body radiation - It is a mistake. If they think that the math will work the same for finite hot dense and infinite hot dense - it is a mistake. The only way is to understand the real meaning of the Black body model. There is no need for math. Just read and understand the requirement for this model. So, if they set the whole universe in "insulated enclosure" they get by definition a black body signature. If they increase the size of the universe to the infinity, then also by definition the radiation will never get to those walls that are opaque to radiation. In other words, the infinity creates the insulated enclosure. Therefore, an infinite universe should have a black body signature. (For today radiation). We don't need a help from a 13.4 old radiation. There is no need for math. It is just straight forward from the basic explanation of the black body model.

CMB – Black Body The science considers that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background "The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old". That is a severe mistake!!! The CMB represents our current Universe. What we get is what we have. It isn't a snapshot, it is not some sort of an echo, but it is a radiation for our current Universe. At any spot of our Universe, at any direction we should get: " The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.[5] " It is stable radiation. Same radiation as it was one billion year ago, 10 billion years ago or even in the next 100 Billion years. The CMB spectrum has become the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature"." The black body radiation tells us that vital information about our current Universe. The explanation is as follow: Let's see what black body is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body "An ideal body is now defined, called a blackbody. A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.[10]" In other words, it is like a radiation in an oven (No radiation transmitted through the body) So, let's assume that we have the ability to close the whole observable universe with some sort of a balloon. All the radiation stays in that balloon. Technically, we should get a black body radiation. If we increase the radius of this balloon to the infinity, we still get a reflection of black body. But if we get the infinity, we don't need the balloon any more. So, the radiation of infinite body should be a black body. As we get: The CMB spectrum has become the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature"." Then this is a solid proof that our universe is infinite!

Good Question. Well, I have master in Engineering & Business Management, but not in Astrophysics. That is my biggest advantage over those 10,000 professional astrophysicists/cosmologists. They had to learn the BBT. They are locked in the BBT box. Once you are in - you stay there forever. There is no way for escape. However, if it was so good theory – No one will criticize it. (Not even me). Do we criticize Newton Theory? Do we criticize Darwin theory? No, because we ALL know that those theories are 100% correct. However, if the BBT was correct then why the science has no clue about the Universe? How could it be that even today the science don't know for sure if the Universe is finite or infinite? So simple question. They even don't know for sure what is the impact of infinite Universe on its age. Astrophysics is like a doctors for Universe. Show me one doctor which has no clue what is the size of his Patient or its age. Without knowing those basic information you can't be a doctor. Without knowing the real size/age of the universe don't call yourself – Astrophysics. Actually, just last year or two it was clear to me that the science consider it as finite Universe. I do recall that it was assumed the max diameter of the Universe is 90 BLY. Now they say - the Universe might be infinite or finite. Hay – Is it real? How could it be that no one out of those million professors doesn't know the real size of the Universe or its real age? Surprisingly, I knew the answer long time ago. So, please let me state the following: The Universe is infinite. And the answer is located in the CMB. But, those professors read the CMB and don't understand its real meaning. How could it be that I know it better than them? If I will get a stage to discuss purely on evidences, without any interfere/noise from that incorrect BBT theory, then I can show you the reality on our Universe. There is no need for complicate Math. The Universe is Very Very simple. Just open your mind.

Based on my understanding of the available evidences, I estimate that there is an error in the BBT theory. Therefore, I have the following questions to Moderator: How important is BBT to modern science? Is there any possibility to discuss science without BBT? Why do you close the discussion every time that I dare to claim that there might be an error in the BBT? Is it forbidden to criticize the BBT in this forum?

Can you please direct me to a relevant article about it?

Thanks Yes, I have full explanation for the CMB. I will do it in the near future. However, before we continue our discussion it is vital to close this issue as follow: Without the BBT theory - There is no evidence for density decreasing. Once we agree on that we will move on to the next step.

Sorry. The current measurements of the CMB don't give any indication about density decreasing. What I do understand is that today its value is 2.7K. That's by itself can't give any negative or positive information about the density. The value of 3000K had been calculated based on the BBT theory. We don't have direct measurements of that value. Therefore, it seems to me that CMB by itself can't be used as an indication for density decreasing. However, it sounds to me like catch 21. 1. Based on the BBT you have calculated that the CMB value in the past was 3000K. 2. Based on the 3000K you prove that the density is decreasing. 3. Based on density decreasing you prove that the BBT is the only valid theory. (Go to 1.) Did I miss something? If so, please explain.

Yes and No Yes - Based on the BBT 13.4 BY ago the universe was hot and dense. Please also see the following explanation about the Big Bang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang "Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe" "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past." "The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law.[6]" That's could be a nice explanation for finite universe. No - The BBT can't explain an infinite Universe. Even if the space expansion will be in the speed of light, the evolvement after 13.8 BY can only get to finite universe. Therefore, the science adds just one single word "Infinite". Therefore, instead of: "13.4 Bil yrs ago the universe was hot and dense" It is stated that: "13.4 Bil yrs ago the universe was infinite hot and dense" Small change - big difference. The science can't explain the source for this Infinite hot dense. When it was finite hot dense, we could understand that somehow something came out of nothing. But now, how can we explain that the infinity came almost out of nothing. I'm sure that the science should surly find a solution also for this "small" question. In any case, I think that if the Universe was infinite hot dense, then we really don't need the whole BBT. They can just say – Yes the Infinite Universe was always there – don't ask us why. We can tell you only about the evolvement. I really don't want to waste your time or even my time. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any correlation between all of those examples to density decreasing. I'm not asking for several evidences. One is enough for me. Please offer one solid evidence for density decreasing. The cosmological constant is part of the BBT. If there is an error in the BBT there might be also an error in that issue. In any case, this isn't an evidence. I had the impression that we have agreed to pile all the evidences on a clear table. You set on this table also the current theory - BBT, and try to see all the evidences through the narrow prism of the BBT. As long as you insist to hold the BBT on the table - then we might not get to any real conclusion. You and Strange are base of knowledge about all the evidences and theories. You both surly know to distinguish between evidences and theory. Please - only evidences. If I recall it correctly: Sir Fred Hoyle which was an English astronomer, have stated that we only need few atoms per year per cube in order to maintain the stability of the Universe.

Well, so far you didn't offer even one real evidence which contradicts the universe stability. I do believe that by math you can prove it. However this isn't evidence. There are plenty of tricks in math which can prove whatever we wish. Evidence please.

Well it's quite simple. The asymptote of the infinity means stability. Infinite universe in its size/age means that there is virtually no starting size or time. As infinite means "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate" Therefore, if we could go through the universe, we should see that it is there at any direction to the infinity. In the same token, if we could go in time forward or backward it should be there at any scale of time. If it is there at any scale of size/time then it must be stable. On the other hand, Let's assume that the current approach/theory is correct (no new mass creation) and verify the outcome. Today we see a universe full of galaxies. Due to the expansion, we should see in the future less and less galaxies (in our observable Universe). So, it is clear that in 100 billion years from now we should see significantly less galaxies. If we go 1,000 BY from now, we might not see too many galaxies. If we go 10,000 BY from now, we might not see any galaxies at all. If we go to the infinity we might not see even one star. But, we are already in the infinity and we still see a universe full of mass and galaxies and still in expansion. Therefore, it must be in its stable state. Therefore it must keep its density.

Thanks So if I understand you correctly: With regards to the Cosmological redshift - that by itself isn't a proof that the density of the Universe is decreasing. However, it is related to our current theory. This also related to our current theory. In other words, the science estimates that if there is a change in volume (due to the expansion) then the outcome should be a change in temperature/pressure/density. However, this is the current understanding for what we see. It doesn't mean that there is a proof that the density is decreasing. Therefore, The redshift by itself or the change in the volume can't be use as evidences for density decreasing. Actually, we both look at the same evidence and we get different conclusions. We all agree that the volume is increasing due to the expansion. 1. Science - Based on the current approach – the science has decided that there is no new mass creation. Hence, if there is a change in volume without new mass creation – then there must be density decreasing. That is logical. 2. Me – I claim that as the Universe is infinite in its size and (even in its age) it must be at its stable state. This stable state means that even in the next 100 Billion years or infinite time from now the Universe should look the same. The only solution for that is that the density must be stable. Therefore, if the volume is changing while the density is stable, then the only solution is mass creation. So, based on the current science approach as the density is decreasing we should see less and less galaxies. If we come back to our universe in the next 100 billion years it should surly be less dense. If we will come after the infinity, we might not see even one galaxy in our observable universe. However, we are already after the infinity, but we still see a universe with billions over billions galaxies. Therefore, I estimate that the Universe is already in its stable state.

Thanks Would you explain why redshift support a higher density in the past? If possible, please highlight an article about this issue.

Do you mean 2.7 or 3000K?

We have to distinguish between evidence and theory. It was agreed to keep a clear table for only real evidences. The CMB as it is today (2.7) is evidence. The idea of 3000 K is part of the current theory. So please, based on what real CMB measurements, do you claim that the density is decreasing?

Based on what data do you claim that the density is decreasing? Would you kindly present this evidence? Actually, if the Universe is infinite, while the mass is finite then by now the density of our universe should be zero or close to zero. However, our observed universe is still full with billions over billions galaxies. I assume that the same density is there outside our observation ability. Somehow, our universe maintains the density even with its infinity size (and I assume also infinity age).

Thanks So let's try to understand the simlest solution for infinite Universe/age with regards to the expansion. How could it be that the Universe is infinite in its size and (or in its age), while it's still expand? If the matter in the Universe was finite, if no new matter would be created, the density in the Universe could decrease by time. After infinite time the Universe density should be close to zero. The only way to maintain the density is by creating new mass. Hence, the simplest solution for the expansion in an infinite Universe/age is new mass creation. Somehow, the universe should create new mass in order to compensate on all the galaxies which are moving away from us. If the mass creation is equal to the total mass which is moving away, then the density of the universe could stay stable infinity. Therefore, expansion in infinite universe means – mass creation. So simple and clear! Do you agree?

Yes, I fully agree with you. In one hand the simplest explanation could be the best strategy, while on the other hand we must fulfill all the other evidences. However, it is our duty to open our mind to any evidence. In other words, we shouldn't look at every new evidence trough the prism of our current understanding. That behavior leads us to narrow minded approach. From time to time we must set all the evidences on the table and try to find the best explanation for all the evidences. That is key element for success at every field. In that way our doctors have developed new medicine to very difficult diseases. Open your mind, open all the possibilities – don't be afraid to ask yourself difficult questions, don't feel poor to get an advice from someone which might not have the certification. Don't say: "Yes, we know better than you, but actually we don't know. If we don't know - there is no way that you might know". Unfortunately, this approach leads us to dead end. Therefore, we must set today a clear table. Pile all the evidences and discoveries about our universe. Try to understand what could be the simplest explanation for any evidence. Just then, try to set a correlation between all the evidences. That is the best strategy that the science community should adopt. This is the only way for success.

Would you kindly summarize the evidences/discoveries which lead the science community into a conclusion that the universe could be infinity in its size and in its age?

Thanks At least there are scientists which consider a possibility for infinity age to infinity universe.

Thanks. Do appreciate your support. Yes, but at least we both agree that it is an option. I must say that this explanation is above my understanding. So let me use the following example: If you see a man with a blue shirt, what does it mean? One can claim that the blue color is due to the reflection from the sea. The light comes in a vertical polarize phase to our eyes and based on some research it was proven that a white shirt can be seen as a blue. Well - that might be correct or incorrect. But don't you think that if we see a blue shirt then there is some chance that it is blue? In the same token - If the Universe is infinite in its size don't you think that the simple answer for that is that it is also infinite in its age? We know that the Universe expands. There are some good evidences for that. Hence, the size of the universe increases on a daily basis. Therefore, if it takes long enough it will be big enough. If it takes infinite time we should get an infinite universe. So simple and clear! Why don't we take it just in the simple way? Why do we need to make it complicate? Why are we so afraid that our real universe is infinite in its age? What will happen? Does it mean that the Sun will suddenly stop shining???

Thanks Perfect. So, why do we ignore the size of the Universe? Don't you think that it is excellent indirect evidence? If the Universe is Infinite, how could it be that its age is limited to only 13.8 Billion years? I don't accept the idea of an early Infinite hot dense stage. If there was an infinite hot dense stage, then by definition it was infinite even before the Big bang. Therefore, the Universe was there long before the Big bang. Hence its age must be higher than 13.8 Billion years. I personally estimate that if the Universe is infinite in its size it must also be infinite in its age.

Thanks Why should we stop asking about it. If you don't know, doesn't mean that there is no answer for that. Few years ago, all the science community were sure that the universe is finite in its size. Now more and more scientists understand that it might be infinite. In the same token - today you claim that the Universe age is not relevant. One day when we will know the real age, you will understand how important it is. Let me use one more example - about Darwin. Some time ago people believed that human and all the animals have been created by divine power. If somemoe claimed that there might be a different story, the answer could be: Hence, at that time, it was clear to all the science community that the starting point for our understanding must start after that creation. So, god had created one couple (Eve and Adam) and from that point, the science (at that time) gave an explanation how all the different looking people had been developed. However, Darwin came with a breakthrough theory. He gave a clear theory about the source of origin. Never the less, the modern science at his generation claimed that based on this theory the human might be ape offspring. That was a real violation of the science at that time. Therefore, he had lost his credibility. At Darwin epoch, the starting point of the modern science was after the human and all the animals' creation by divine power. No one had the right to ask why? It was forbidden. I feel today the same way as Darwin felt at his time. The modern science claims that the starting point of the Universe is definitely an Infinite hot dense stage. It is forbidden to ask why. It is forbidden to ask the real age of the Universe. It is forbidden to criticize the current approach of the modern science and its theories. Why??? If you don't know something, why you are not open to hear different idea?