Science vs BBT.

[David Levy]

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?

Edited November 24, 2016 by David Levy

[DrP]

I am not a moderator, but I often read these pages. As I see it (and I am no expert in cosmology or astrophysics) It isn't 'forbidden' to criticize any science theory at all if you have some kind of evidence to point to why it isn't the best fit of our observations.

 

The BBT is the best fit of all of the data we have.... so if you want to propose something else then you need to do all of the math and show where you think it's wrong and suggest an alternative that fits the observed data in a way that is superior to the current theory. If you can't do that then your new theory will not hold up. The BBT is the result of many, many decades of research and findings and you just look a little naïve when you come along with no experimental data, no maths, no thought experiments and a theory that doesn't match the observed data recorded in reality. What do you expect? If a child started to criticise the theory of gravity, you would say to him that he better go to college and learn some physics before he tries to re-write the theory,.

 

Look at it like this:

How important are electrons to modern science? (very)

Can we discuss science without electrons? (difficult)

Should a discussion be closed if someone dares to claim that there are no electrons? (without proof of that claim then probably yes)

Is it forbidden to criticise the electron on this forum? (No - not if you have observed something new that no one else has - but you better be ready to have your idea scrutinised and you can expect a drilling).

 

If someone came along and suggested that electrons did not exist, would you think they were a crackpot? We all know that the model for the electron is not exact. No-one can fully explain it fully.... but our understanding of it has evolved and grown over centuries... if some 30 year bloke skips up and says he thinks electrons have no charge you would ask him for proof. You'd ask him how we get the observed results from Millikan's experiment if the electron did not exist. If he provided NO proof that the e did not exist and had no maths or substance other than he doesn't think it right, should he be given any credit at all and allowed to continue soap boxing about their being no electron?.... sorry - I hope that is not a strawman, it is just a similar thing because BBT has a lot of support for it from what scientists that actually have been working on these problems have observed.

Edited November 24, 2016 by DrP

[Klaynos]

Based on my understanding of the available evidences, I estimate that there is an error in the BBT theory.

I'd encourage you to show the maths that leads you to this conclusion.

 

 

Therefore, I have the following questions to Moderator:

 

How important is BBT to modern science?

Important isn't the word of use. The lambda cdm model is our best mathematical model of the development of the universe when compared to the quantitative measurements.

 

Is there any possibility to discuss science without BBT?

I almost never talk about it at work. Insect I think I've talked about it once in the last 2 or so years at work.

 

Why do you close the discussion every time that I dare to claim that there might be an error in the BBT?

Because they fail to follow the rules. Give them a quick read through.

 

Is it forbidden to criticize the BBT in this forum?

No but you will be asked to present your evidence in a scientific way and not make WAGs.

[DrP]

Sorry Klaynos - you put it much better than I. I wouldn't normally post on such a topic as I am not an Astrophysicist. Presumably David Levy IS an Astrophysicist though or some kind of NASA space scientist if he has evidence that goes against the last few hundred years of scientific observation. He must be at the cutting edge of research.

 

David - out of interest, where did you do your Astrophysics Ph.D.?

Edited November 24, 2016 by DrP

[Mordred]

Sorry Klaynos - you put it much better than I. I wouldn't normally post on such a topic as I am not an Astrophysicist. Presumably David Levy IS an Astrophysicist though or some kind of NASA space scientist if he has evidence that goes against the last few hundred years of scientific observation. He must be at the cutting edge of research.

 

David - out of interest, where did you do your Astrophysics Ph.D.?

Oh my I couldn't stop laughing. I was nearly in stitches. Though your point is clear.

 

David instead of trying to prove why BBT doesn't work. Try first studying why it does work.

 

Why do 1000's of professional astrophysicists/cosmologists agree with LCDM as being our best fit.

 

Then when you understand why it is the best fit you can isolate what doesn't fit

 

PS that requires learning the math and proper definitions. I've often tinkered with the idea of designing a personal model in speculations just to demonstrate how to properly model build.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Mordred

[David Levy]

David - out of interest, where did you do your Astrophysics Ph.D.?

 

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.

Edited November 24, 2016 by David Levy

[Mordred]

what a weak argument, every astrophysicist is not locked in stone on BBT. There are thousands of counter models. LCDM is still the best fit.

 

We don't make the math complex simply out of whim. They become complex to as accurately as possible predict any possible dynamic involved.

 

Much like QM and its statistical probability equations of a waveform.

 

If you actually sit down and study the math of GR and the FLRW metric you would know it has the flexibility to model any type of universe. Not just our own.

 

It can model infinite/finite, universes of any curvature value. The only thing neither can directly deal with is singularities. However they can be adapted under different coordinates to remove the mathematical singularities.

 

The reasons your threads get locked is that you get stubborn your view is correct. Yet do not know the math to support your view. Instead you make inaccurate statements that we have to spend pages upon pages of posts correcting. However if you sat down and actually learned the model you would not make those mistskes that causes everyone else so much grief in correcting.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

I would expect an engineer to understand more of how science works. This is a caricature you have in your mind, where all scientists learn by rote without understanding the foundations of the subject, so they're susceptible to following teachings blindly. It's an image that lets you believe you have an advantage in ignorance, and I think an engineer would should know better.

[Strange]

 

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.

 

Really. So if you were seriously ill, instead of a good cardiologist or neurosurgeon (or whatever the appropriate specialist is) you would visit a carpenter because they had to learn medicine and are locked in the medicine box?

 

 

However, if it was so good theory – No one will criticize it. (Not even me).

 

Nonsense. All theories get criticised and tested. That is how science progresses.

 

 

 

Do we criticize Newton Theory? Do we criticize Darwin theory?

 

Yes. Of course.

 

 

No, because we ALL know that those theories are 100% correct.

 

No they are not. No theory is ever 100% correct.

 

You don't know anything about science, do you?

 

 

 

If I will get a stage to discuss purely on evidences

 

Now is your chance. Hurry up before this thread gets closed for lack of any substantial argument.

 

Your position seems to be: "the big bang model must be wrong because I don't understand it and am totally ignorant of physics and the scientific method".

 

Not very convincing so far.

 

Please present your evidence and the mathematics that shows the theory is wrong. (Vague and incorrect waffle about "infinity" won't get you anywhere.)

[Phi for All]

Really. So if you were seriously ill, instead of a good cardiologist or neurosurgeon (or whatever the appropriate specialist is) you would visit a carpenter because they had to learn medicine and are locked in the medicine box?

 

Well, I'm no engineer, but I have this great idea about economy cars. You see, I figure if you design the car to take advantage of DRAFTING (following closely in the turbulence wake of another car), you won't need costly systems like steering and braking since you'll basically be "towed along" by the car in front of you. It's so simple! I can't believe none of the "professional" engineers ever thought of this before, but that's the advantage you have when you aren't "locked in the box" of mainstream engineering teachings.

[DrP]

 

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?

 

Of course we do - how else would we know them to be the best fits to our current way of thinking? In fact Darwin's thoughts and premises have been built upon and the current theory of evolution is different in many places from what Darwin first postulated... (I will let an expert expand on that if necessary, not me).

 

Also Newton - His gravity theories are correct for the macro world but I think it all breaks down at silly speeds and at the quantum level.

 

I used to think that the singularity model for the Black hole was probably incorrect - I even got laughed at for suggesting that it was just a mathematical modal and it couldn't really be an infinitely small space that houses all that mass. I never believed that in reality it was an actual singularity in there, just that it appears that way to the observer and that the maths was the best fit. I still don't really believe it, but I know it is the best modal we had available that actually fitted the maths. Not sure what the current thinking is, but I know that the maths is probably a bit over my head. I think I even commented about it here - I never got negative rep for suggesting it though because I concede that there are people here that know a lot more about it than me and didn't try to force my issue that I do not believe in an infinitely small dot containing all of the mass inside a black hole and I have absolutely no way of proving it....and...just because I personally have a hard time understanding it,doesn't make it untrue.

[Moontanman]

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?

 

 

Let's hear about that error, can you tell us about your model? If not the BBT (Kaley Cuoco wouldn't have a job) then what is your speculation on the subject?

[David Levy]

Let's hear about that error, can you tell us about your model? If not the BBT (Kaley Cuoco wouldn't have a job) then what is your speculation on the subject?

 

 

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!

Edited November 24, 2016 by David Levy

[John Cuthber]

Why do you close the discussion every time that I dare to claim that there might be an error in the BBT?

Because you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

 

 

 

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 can't be the universse as it is "now" because it's travelling at the speed of light and it only just got here.

 

 

Also,

http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

[Strange]

In other words, it is like a radiation in an oven

 

 

The universe is not like an oven. So you need to explain what the source of this black body radiation is.

[Delta1212]

Because you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

 

It can't be the universse as it is "now" because it's travelling at the speed of light and it only just got here.

 

 

Also,

http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

Glad I'm not the only one that thought of that last point.

[Strange]

 

 

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.

 

Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, that this is the case. (Just asserting it to be true, with supporting theory or evidence is not scientific.)

 

If all the sources of radiation are NOT black bodies (which they are not) then please explain (with appropriate references to standard physics) how it magically becomes a black body spectrum.

 

 

 

If we increase the radius of this balloon to the infinity, we still get a reflection of black body.

 

You can only get a "reflection" of a black body spectrum if you have a source of a black body spectrum. What is this source?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

David Levy, you've been here long enough to be familiar with the rules on speculations. Give us a model, evidence, or specific testable predictions. Mere hand-waving, or avoiding questions, gets this closed.

[Moontanman]

 

 

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!

 

 

You do realize that the universe is expanding, in fact the expansion is accelerating, so EM radiation formed at the beginning of the universe has been stretched out (cooled) and now is at a temp of 2.72548±0.00057 K so yes it is a snapshot of the current temp of the universe but it is also what the universe looked like at T+ 380,000 years. Yes it is the same radiation, why would you think it is not?

 

Now in your description of a black body and how it absorbs radiation you are being deceptive by leaving out part of the description. You say this in quotes

 

 

"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]"

 

 

When in fact your own link says this:

 

 

A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. A white body is one with a "rough surface [that] reflects all incident rays completely and uniformly in all directions."^[1]

 

A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic radiation called black-body radiation. The radiation is emitted according to Planck's law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone (see figure at right), not by the body's shape or composition.

 

A black body in thermal equilibrium has two notable properties:^[2]

1. It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much energy as – or more energy than – any other body at the same temperature.
2. It is a diffuse emitter: the energy is radiated isotropically, independent of direction.

 

 

By not using the entire definition of black body radiation you were trying to cherry pick the definition and build a strawman...

[David Levy]

The universe is not like an oven. So you need to explain what the source of this black body radiation is.

 

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.

Edited November 25, 2016 by David Levy

[Klaynos]

So no maths or evidence then. Just a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions.

 

I'd suggest trying to learn some physics before criticising it.

 

Why we do not get the radiation from the Universe when it was 13 BY, 10BY, 5BY, 1BY, one year or even this moment?

 

We do, that's why you can see stars, the sun, your bedroom light, the computer screen etc... But no source other than the CMB was/is everywhere in the universe at once. Learn the maths, understand the physics then you might understand just how wrong you're being.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

So, no math, no model, no prediction, no evidence.

Your lack of familiarity with physics in general and the big bang in particular is not the boon you think it is.


I will make one point, to show one place where you went astray.

 

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.

!

Moderator Note

 

A widely used model of a blackbody does not mean that all blackbodies are identical. You saw the words but did not understand them, probably because you need to learn more physics, at the very least.

To borrow from Monty Python's "The Logician"

'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bulls***. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.

 

or

 

'All perfect cavities are blackbodies,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all blackbodies are perfect cavties.' This is, of course, pure bulls***. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.

 

 

Don't re-introduce the subject (or any subject in speculations, for that matter) unless you are compliant with the speculations requirements.