The Evidences For The Big Bang

[lbiar]

(against the mainstream) I need your feedback.

 

Deleted

 

Sorry by the errors, I put a new one.

[lbiar]

I change first post, I write over error in the big-bang and expansion theories that consider that homogeneity expansion is according to redshift and Hubble's law, but really is against theirs.

 

Thanks.

[lbiar]

I add:

 

The expansion of the universe cannot to be at same time homogeneous: 50-50-50-50 (need for homogeneity and isotropy - 50 is expansion+stretch and at doble distance the speed is the same) and incremental 50-40-30-20-10 or 10-20-30-40 (need for Hubble’s law and redshift in relation with distance).

 

Thanks.

[Boerseun]

Ibiar, you keep on creating new threads with different titles, but they all say essentially the same thing. You keep on asking for input from our members, but none is given - because nobody can understand you.

 

I'm sure you've got a very valid point that you're trying to get across, and I'm sure our members will be more than willing to engage you in discussion if they could only understand you.

 

You have been asked to keep your posts to one thread. You have been asked to rather attempt posting in the Spanish forum. You have done neither and you insist on discussion in a language on which you, frankly, have a very weak grasp.

 

I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again:

 

Please don't expect any responses to posts that nobody can understand. We don't like the detritus of incomprehensible posts lying around Hypo - they add no value and generally untidies the place. If you insist on this mode of behaviour, I see little else to do with you than to recommend a permanent ban.

 

Not to be taken personally, of course. But myself, I have very little to offer a Japanese-speaking Science Forum. That's kinda why I stick to the English-speaking ones.

[lbiar]

Ibiar, you keep on creating new threads with different titles, but they all say essentially the same thing. You keep on asking for input from our members, but none is given - because nobody can understand you.

 

I'm sure you've got a very valid point that you're trying to get across, and I'm sure our members will be more than willing to engage you in discussion if they could only understand you.

 

You have been asked to keep your posts to one thread. You have been asked to rather attempt posting in the Spanish forum. You have done neither and you insist on discussion in a language on which you, frankly, have a very weak grasp.

 

I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again:

 

Please don't expect any responses to posts that nobody can understand. We don't like the detritus of incomprehensible posts lying around Hypo - they add no value and generally untidies the place. If you insist on this mode of behaviour, I see little else to do with you than to recommend a permanent ban.

 

Not to be taken personally, of course. But myself, I have very little to offer a Japanese-speaking Science Forum. That's kinda why I stick to the English-speaking ones.

 

 

Sorry.

 

I don't understand so, I create more thread to facilitate the differences. Each thread has a different name, later I have write the same in the last post, but first post is over the title. (maybe that today any of their has not value, but when I write theirs the title was different). Sorry.

 

I make this (I would arrange this and make 2 more if you permit me (by now I write it in that thread):

 

I put here the new work:

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Deleted

 

Sorry by the errors, I put a new one.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Thanks and sorry if I disturb.

[Qfwfq]

Holà Ibiar! ¿Hable Español? Català? Occitan? Euskara?

[lbiar]

Holà Ibiar! ¿Hable Español? Català? Occitan? Euskara?

 

Español.

[lbiar]

I add another work:

 

The expansion of the universe only can to be at light speed

 

We see the objects at near lightspeed (point 1: quasar and background) if the universe expand how says the theory they would be invisible (the universe “expands uniformly in all directions” ), so the only one possibility to see theirs is with an expansion at light speed, so the background that it’s at 13.7 billion lightyears need to travel near lightyear this all 13.7 billion years and by that the expansion is decreasing with distance (it has not importance the distance to that objects in relation at expansion).

[Qfwfq]

Ibiar, yo no hable bien Español. I am fluent in Italian, I have a reasonable knowlege of French, less knowledge of Spanish and I find I can understand pretty much when reading various romance languages (a bit less with Portuguese and Galician, fairly well with Spanish, Catalan or Occitan). For this reason, I have a less difficulty than other people here, when reading your posts. I can get over some of your problems, like latinate syntax. I am familiar with the problems of romance language speakers trying to write in English, for example conjugation and tenses of verbs are very different. But it is a great effort to read your posts and I can't alway be certain of what you mean. I am sure it is much harder for most people here.

 

if the universe expand how says the theory they would be invisible

I'm not perfectly certain if you mean: "if the universe expands how does the theory say they would be invisible" Am I getting it wrong?

 

so the only one possibility to see theirs is with an expansion at light speed,

What do you mean by "theirs"? B)

 

so the background that it’s at 13.7 billion lightyears need to...

The only guess I can make is: "so the background that is at 13.7 billion lightyears needs to". It wasn't easy for me to think of this correction, the pronoun "it" following the subject, with "that" between them, caused me terrible confusion. I couldn't understand which role of the word "that" you were using (pronoun, conjunction, adjective, adverb).

 

...travel near lightyear this all 13.7 billion years and by that the expansion is decreasing with distance

Do you mean "travel near lightspeed for all these 13.7 billion years" maybe? Still I don't understand how it implies the expansion is decreasing with distance.

 

(it has not importance the distance to that objects in relation at expansion).

Well, that's easy enough: "the distance to those objects in relation to expansion has no importance" (or: is not important)

 

Now that was a very short post but it took a lot of effort to partially decrypt it, without even being certain I have understood it. It is much harder for those who don't know much of romance languages.

[lbiar]

I delete the option 1 (universe size), is error.

 

Sorry and thanks.

 

Also add:

 

2 – The expansion of the universe only can to be at light speed

 

We see the objects at near lightspeed (point 1: quasar and background) if the universe expand how says the theory they would be invisible (the universe “expands uniformly in all directions” ), so the only one possibility to see theirs is with an expansion at light speed, so the background that it’s at 13.7 billion lightyears need to travel near lightyear this all 13.7 billion years and by that the expansion is decreasing with distance (it has not importance the distance to that objects in relation at expansion).

 

This ligth need to expand all time at light speed, if accelerated is not show (it’s near light speed), if decelerate is against Hubble’s law.

[lbiar]

so the only one possibility to see theirs is with an expansion at light speed,

 

The background is at 13.7 billion lightyears need to travel near lightyear this all 13.7 billion, if accelerated would not see, if decelerated the Hubble's law would be error.

 

Theirs is the the radiation of cosmic microwave background and quasar at 13 billion years.

 

Do you mean "travel near lightspeed for all these 13.7 billion years" maybe? Still I don't understand how it implies the expansion is decreasing with distance.

 

Good question, the universe is expanding, if the background at 13.7 billion years/2 don't expand at lightspeed today we can't to see where we see. According to Hubble's law distance-speed would be impossible to see where now we see it. Hubble's law say double distance is double speed, so 1/4 distance is 1/4 speed, 1/16 distance is 1/16 of speed, but the background is at 13.7 billion lightyears and the light has 13.7 billion years, in any speed expansion from thear different to near lightspeed this light today could not see in that distance and time.

 

I know my english is bad.

 

Sorry and thanks.

[Pyrotex]

lbiar,

 

Give it up. Stop. Cease. Quit. Halt. You are wasting your time. You are wasting our time. You do not make sense. Your words are a babble of nonsense and baby-talk. Give it up. This:

 

The expansion of the universe cannot to be at same time homogeneous: 50-50-50-50 (need for homogeneity and isotropy - 50 is expansion+stretch and at doble distance the speed is the same) and incremental 50-40-30-20-10 or 10-20-30-40 (need for Hubble’s law and redshift in relation with distance). ...

The background is at 13.7 billion lightyears need to travel near lightyear this all 13.7 billion, if accelerated would not see, if decelerated the Hubble's law would be error.

is total nonsense. It means nothing. It has no sense in it. It has no understanding in it.

 

Your command of English is bad, very bad. No one can understand anything you say.

Your command of Physics is even worse. You do not know anything about photons and light.

You are a like a small child trying to talk about adult subjects.

 

Please. Give it up.

[lbiar]

lbiar,

 

Give it up. Stop. Cease. Quit. Halt. You are wasting your time. You are wasting our time. You do not make sense. Your words are a babble of nonsense and baby-talk. Give it up. This:

 

 

is total nonsense. It means nothing. It has no sense in it. It has no understanding in it.

 

Your command of English is bad, very bad. No one can understand anything you say.

Your command of Physics is even worse. You do not know anything about photons and light.

You are a like a small child trying to talk about adult subjects.

 

Please. Give it up.

 

 

I see sense.

 

"The expansion of the universe cannot to be at same time homogeneous: 50-50-50-50 (need for homogeneity and isotropy - 50 is expansion+stretch and at doble distance the speed is the same) and incremental 50-40-30-20-10 or 10-20-30-40 (need for Hubble’s law and redshift in relation with distance). ..."

 

Relation distance speed make that universe expand in the form 50-40-30-20-10 (we see it how 10-20-30-40), this has relation distance-speed (how 4 cars traveling at 10-20-30-40 km/hr).

 

When we add to this the homogeneity the distances are made equals (homogeneity=same size of the objects, same distances, ...) and by that need to convert distances (10-20-30-40) in 50-50-50-50 where each is expansion+strech in the form 100+0 - 75+25 - 50+50 - 25+75 and this (homogeneity) is equivalent to 4 cars traveling at 50 km/hr at distances 50-100-150-200

 

"The background is at 13.7 billion lightyears need to travel near lightyear this all 13.7 billion, if accelerated would not see, if decelerated the Hubble's law would be error."

 

This objects (background) are at 13.7 billion lightyears and his light has 13.7 billion years, if the universe expand in the form distance - speed (2distance - 2speed) would not show because their expansion is near light speed, in this note: when was at distance/2 the speed would be speed/2 and if it need 13.7 billion years to arrive to us: how can not arrived when expansion was speed/2 and speed/4?

 

If decelerated (inflattion and deceleration) the Hubble's law would be error, because all the next time is show (more near to us).

 

(seem that I explain bad, and the idiom, but the concept are good - maybe you think against, it's clear).

[lbiar]

I put here a conclusion over the points write before:

 

Conclusions:

 

Deleted

 

Sorry by the errors, I put a new one.

 

thanks.

[lbiar]

The truth of anti-matter

 

 

 

Change the way you think and you will find the answers.

 

I know over this, but I don't understand if your note is according to anti-matter or against it.

 

I prefer don't speak over anti-matter, with my notes by now is enough.

[modest]

lbiar's argument is, I believe, that the CMB would not be visible without fine tuning.

 

Because the CMB happened at one point in the past, lbiar believes that it should be visible at only one point in earth's history (or present or future). If the surface of last scattering were a little closer to earth, expanding at the speed it is, its light would have already reached earth and if it were a little further from earth, its light wouldn't have reached us yet.

 

That is how I interpret the reference to the CMB being invisible. It is incorrect because the CMBR fills the universe just as the surface of last scattering filled the universe. It is now and always will be visible (at least, until it is too redshifted to be easily observed).

 

~modest

[Pyrotex]

lbiar's argument is, I believe, that the CMB would not be visible without fine tuning....~modest

Perhaps it is modest.

But the plain fact is, Ibiar is neither able to express this coherently, nor is he able to understand our comments and objections.

We could ask him if his argument is as you stated above.

But he would be unable to understand your question or evaluate the correlation between what he has said (14 times) and what you said.

I suggest, with all due respect, that we close all his threads and delete them.

This is getting us nowhere.

Pyro