David Levy

That is perfect. So I can assume that even if the furnace size will be 1 or 10 Million Ly, after significant time frame, those 400 Billion stars could easily set a few K temp in this furnace?

Yes, that is correct. But, what about the total mass of the dark matter in the Milky way? Do you claim that the dark matter has no energy contribution? In any case, if there are only 800 billion stars (without the dark matter), can we assume that furnace temp could be few K?

Further your reply let me update the question: If we could set the whole Milky Way Hot gas Halo (The halo of gas is shown with a radius of about 300,000 light years,) in a furnace, what might be the average temp in that Furnace? Thanks I have tried to calculate the total number of stars in that halo: In this article it is stated: "Data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory was used to estimate [link to press release] that the mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy." So, in the Milky way there are 400 Billion Stars. Scientists believe that 90% of our galaxy’s mass consists of dark matter. Hence, we can assume that the total mass in the Milky way (including the dark matter) is 4 Trillion stars. Based on the article, in that halo there might be same number of stars as in the Milky way. Therefore, the total mass in the Milky way and the halo is 8 Trillion stars. So, can we assume that 8 trillion stars could set at least a few K in furnace with a radius of 1M light years (after unlimited time)?

Excellent question. Let's assume that it would be there for unlimited time (or infinite).

No, the furnace is only used as some sort of thermal isolation. It can't generate any heat. Without the Milky Way its temp is 0 (zero) K. So, if we could cover the Milky way galaxy with thermal isolation - (Let's call it furnace), what might be the average temp in that furnace?

In the milky way galaxy there are about 400 Billion stars. Scientists believe that 90% of our galaxy’s mass consists of dark matter. So if we could place the Milky way in a furnace, what would be the average temp in that furnace?

Further the discussion about: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94591-astronomers-have-discovered-a-super-fast-star-system-that-seems-to-break-current-physics-models/ In the article it is stated: http://futurism.com/astronomers-discovered-super-fast-star-system-seems-break-current-physics-models/ In the article it is stated: "The fact that PB3877 is zooming through the outskirts of the Milky Way is another thing that sets it apart from anything else astronomers have found. All the other hyper-velocity stars we know about have been relatively close to the supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy, and physicists have generally agreed that that’s how their incredible acceleration rates could be explained. Now we have something that puts this hypothesis into serious question." "It appears to consist of one super-hot star that’s more than five times hotter than our Sun, and a companion that’s 1,000 degrees cooler than our Sun." "They also managed to map out its path to determine that it could not have originated from the centre of the Milky Way. This means it cannot have been accelerated by a supermassive black hole." Instead, the team hypothesises that either a crapload of dark matter must be surrounding the star like a kind of ‘halo’ to keep it stable at such incredible speeds at the edge of the galaxy" So, it's quite clear that the science has no answer to this issue due to the BBT mask. I can easily explain the source for this Ultra high speed. Actually, I have already expected this phenomenon, as it is stated at the following tread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87496-newton-gravity-for-spiral-galaxy/?hl=%2Bdavid+%2Blevy#entry852821 Unfortunately, the science does not understand the real mechanism operation of spiral galaxy. So let me state the following: All the stars in spiral galaxy are there due to Newton law. The spiral galaxy is a direct outcome of Newton law. Those poor stars had been kicked out from the galaxy as a direct outcome of Newton law. As I have stated at that tread pg. 24 "Let's assume that one star had been drifted out from the spiral arm and try to figure what should be the outcome: We all know that the gravity force is : " inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them" Therefore, the nearby stars contribute significant portion of the equivalent gravity force which attracts this star in the galaxy. If a miserable star is drifted out from the spiral arm, (not inwards or outwards in the arm – but just out of the arm) its equivalent gravity force should be decreased. Hence, there will be no balance between its rotation energy to its new decreased equivalent gravity force. Therefore, it will be kicked out from the arm and eventually from the galaxy. Hence, Theoretically we might see some stars between the arms. But those stars are in transient mode. They had been kicked out from the galaxy. This proves that there are no stars in between the spiral arms!" So I have predicted that any poor star which will dare to move away from the spiral arm will be kicked out from the galaxy, and now there is a proof for that. As stated: "They also managed to map out its path to determine that it could not have originated from the centre of the Milky Way. This means it cannot have been accelerated by a suppermassive black hole." That also meet my expectation that there are no free stars in-between the spiral arms. So, when shall I get my reward from the science community?

Sorry, I disagree. We can't set an infinite Universe in only 13.8 Billion years. In any case: You claim that the Universe could be Infinite or finite. I claim that the Universe is INFINITE by 100%. So my question is as follow: When (not if) the science will understand that the universe is Infinite - would I get some kind of appreciation or rewards? You can ask me - Why I am so sure about an infinite Universe? As I have already stated - the answer is just here in front of our eyes. We can't see it due to the mask. That mask is called - BBT. CMB - is evidence. Redshift - is evidence. With regards to the CMB: I have asked: The answer was: Sorry, I also disagree. There must be some differences in the CMB signature between Infinite and finite universe. So what is the source for this mistake? The answer is quite simple – Unfortunately, based on that Mask, the science estimates that the CMB must be a reflection from the early Universe. That is incorrect. That CMB is a reflection of our current Universe. We can think about it as a constant. It will be the same in the next 10 BY or 100 BY. It was also the same 10 BY ago or 100 BY ago. Once you accept this idea, you have solved the Universe enigma. Actually, a blackbody radiation is a solid proof for Infinite Universe. (I can prove it if needed). The CMB high level temp represents the density of our current infinite Universe. Its redshift value indicates that it took it long time to cross significant distance till we get it. That is an indication that the Universe age is significantly higher than the expected 13.8 By. (For the record – My expectation is that the Universe age is also INFINITE). If you wish, (Just for the record) I can set some key issues from my knowledge about the Universe at the speculation site. You can set it at the trash. Sooner or later you will find that those issues are correct.

Thanks Please be aware that the current assumptions create some sort of mask. Unfortunately, it is impossible to see our real Universe through this mask – A universe which I can see so clearly.

That's good enough. Based on the observable portion we can easily find that the Universe is Infinite. It's quite clear that the Current theories do not support an Infinite Universe. Therefore, with your permeation, let's try to ignore those theories - just for one moment. Now, assuming that our Universe is infinite, what should be the impact on the CMB? In this case, do you agree that the radiation of the CMB should be absolutely identical from all directions?

With regards to the Universe size: So, just for the record; It isn't an issue of - could, not - 50%, not even 99.99%. The Universe is Infinite by 100%.

For me - this answer is a huge step forward. However, would you kindly highlight the reasons to set the "Infinite Universe" as feasible option? How the science supports this assertion?

Thanks However, how could it be that suddenly the science community considers an option for infinite Universe? Just few months ago it was forbidden to mention it. I have got several worming for claiming that the Universe could be infinite. My threads had been set at trash for this idea. Now we speak freely on that idea in the main page of science. So, what happened? What did you discover?

Thanks What do you mean by "false vacuum state"? However, if the Universe is Infinite: Does it mean that our current Theories don't cover this option? So, do we need to "invent the wheel" - (Ignore the current mainstream Theories including the BBT), or we just need to find (as usual) a new patch to close the gape.

How could it be that an infinite Universe would be created out of nothing? In the following article it is stated: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf "Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing" So, if the current universe is as follow: Then this theory might be applicable for the following starting point of the Universe: However, if the Universe is infinite: Then, how could it be that an infinite starting point of the universe would be created out of nothing?

Thanks for the explanation However, I assume that there is a small problem with the CMB blackbody radiation. http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/CMB.html "How does the blackbody CMB evolve as the universe expands? The universe is spatially homogenous and isotropic, so the properties of the CMB can be calculated by considering what happens to blackbody radiation in a small cube whose side length a(t)slowly grows with time t since the big bang. "Small" here means only much smaller than the Hubble distancecH0300105 km s−173 km s−1 Mpc−141103 Mpc so that relativistic effects can be ignored." If I understand it correctly, the Universe should be quite small in order to create that kind of blackbody radiation. However, if the Universe expands from Infinite, than it can't be considered as "small". In this case, how could it have a CMB blackbody radiation?

Thanks So the CMB level should decrease linearly with time. Technically, based on our sensitive and advanced detectors, I assume that we should discover minor decrease even in a range of our life time. This should proof that our current theories (BBT) are fully correct. However, if it will be discovered that even after quite significant time, there is no change in that CMB level. Don't you think that there is a meaning for that? I'm not asking about steady state. I just wonder if it is feasible that the Universe expands to the infinity without any change with its pressure and temp.

Question: Based on our current understanding about the Universe - Do we expect to see any change in the CMB level in the Future? (1 Million, One Billion or even one trillion years from now) In the same token, what was the expected CMB level one billion or 10 Billions years ago?

We can verify it quite easily by the CMB level. If there is no change in the CMB level (in the next 1 million/billion year), than this is correct. If there is a change in the CMB in the future, then it is clear that As the Volume increases BOTH the temperature and pressure drops.

With regards to that formula: We take it for granted that there is no change in - N number of moles (particles) In this case, it is clear that: As the Volume increases BOTH the temperature and pressure drops However, if we assume that the N number of moles (particles) is not constant. Then, theoretically, we can claim that: As the Volume increases, the number of moles (particles) increases. If it is equally balanced, then there is no need to set any change in BOTH the temperature and pressure. If this is correct, it could supports the Idea that new mass is created while the universe expands to the infinity without any negative impact on temp and pressure.

Please remember that we are discussing about INFINITE dense hot universe. Infinite universe has an infinite volume. So what does it mean - a greater volume over an infinite volume? With regards to the example which I have used - Do you agree that : ideal engine generates "heat energy" which is identical to the "cold energy"? Do you also agree that: If we can't move the extra heat energy to different environment, than the total energy of that ideal engine should be zero? If so, technically if the universe generates cold energy due to the expansion, it also creates identical heat energy. Those energies should eliminate each other. In any case, with regards to your statement - "The extra heat is distributed over a greater volume." Why the "extra cold" can't be distributed over a greater volume in an infinite volume Universe?

Yes and no Yes - as the pressure drops, the temperature drops. That is correct. No - that is just the starting point. Somehow you need to get rid of the extra heat. So, let's look at a refrigerator. There are two isolated arias: Inside and outside. The engine is actually using the idea of different pressures to generate cold gas. However, this activity creates extra heat. In an ideal engine the total "cold energy" which it generates should be identical to a total "heat energy". So, we must find a way to get rid of that extra heat energy. Therefore, we have to set an isolated environment in order to keep the coldness inside the refrigerator. However, in the Universe there is only one environment. It is similar to a refrigerator without its walls, or like an engine working in an open environment. Technically, that ideal engine generates "heat energy" which is identical to the "cold energy". If we can't move the extra heat energy to different environment, than the total energy of that ideal engine should be zero. Therefore, the universe which is considered as a homogenous environment can't cool itself by itself.

No. In this case you have two different environments: different temp, different pressure, different gas mix... Therefore, as the gas gets out the aerosol it also gets cold. In an infinite Universe there is only one environment. Think about an aerosol inside an aerosol. If you try it you should find that there is no change in the temp.

Sorry, I disagree. The expansion of molecules of air can't decrease the temp! In order to get it cooler we need to mix it with cooler environment. Unfortunately, in an infinite hot dense universe there is no extra room for cooler environment.

Thanks This is the most important question. Based on the BBT, 13.8 BY ago, the universe was finite hot dense state. The question is: How could it be that something that was FINITE hot dense state could expand to infinite? As it is stated: It is quite clear that a finite Universe can never expand into Infinite Universe in a 13.8 By time frame. So by definition - an infinite Universe contradicts the basic Idea of finite hot dense state. Never the less - let's see the following explanation: You claim that if the Universe is infinite, than 13.8 BY ago it was an infinitely large and uniformly hot and dense universe However, how could it be that an infinite hot dense Universe could get cooler? Think about an infinite oven. Let's assume that in that oven we have set an infinite no. of cakes and its temp. is very high (6000 K). If we "expand" the distance between the cakes, is it going to have any effect on the oven temp? I do believe that the answer is no. If so, the expansion couldn't decrease the infinite Universe temp. That contradicts the whole idea of the CMB radiation temp. Therefore, do you agree that an infinite Universe contradicts the idea of finite or infinite hot dense state.