Thread: The average age of matter in the Steady State model

Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
In this article it is stated:
"Furthermore, since the radius of curvature of the Universe can notchange, but must expand, the radius has to be infinite. Thus the Steady State model has flat spatial sections like the critical density Big Bang model. Since the expansion of the Universe spreads the existing matter over a larger and larger volume, but the density stays constant, the Steady State model requires continuous creation of matter. The average age of matter in the Steady State model is <t> = 1/(3*H_o) but some galaxies are much older than the average, so the age of the globular clusters can be accommodated if the Milky Way is older than the average."
The following message is not clear to me:
The average age of matter in the Steady State model is <t> = 1/(3*H_o) but some galaxies are much older than the average, so the age of the globular clusters can be accommodated if the Milky Way is older than the average."
In one hand they claim that there are galaxies which are much older than the average calculated age, while in the other hand it is stated that the Milky Way is not old enough (therefore, the age of the globular clusters can't be accommodated) . Why? Did I miss something? Can someone explain this contradiction?

There's no contradiction. SS is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Why? Did I miss something? Can someone explain this contradiction?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

It doesn't say "the Milky Way is not old enough". It says, "... if the Milky Way is older than the average."

There are always galaxies older (and younger) than the average. The Milky Way would be one of those older galaxies. There is no contradiction (in that extract, as far as I can see).

Besides, age of matter and age of galaxies are two separate questions. Probably the majority of the new matter that formed would find its way into an already existing galaxy.

I'm with Alex on the SS model. All matter would have been created during the big bang process, if we believe there was no matter before the big bang. Then after star formation the first generation stars would start forging new elements in their life cycles, but those new elements are being created out of already existing matter. In the current model of the universe I don't see where any matter would be newer or older than any other matter. I don't consider new elements as new matter.

What you have to remember is the OP is a nut, he's been posting variations of his SS "theory" for quite a while. He ignores anything that contradicts his nonsense and just repeats the same assertions, occasionally he starts a new thread rather than address any of the points made against him when it is obvious he is losing the argument. Trawl through pseudo and trash to read his other efforts if you feel like a laugh.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What you have to remember is the OP is a nut, he's been posting variations of his SS "theory" for quite a while. He ignores anything that contradicts his nonsense and just repeats the same assertions, occasionally he starts a new thread rather than address any of the points made against him when it is obvious he is losing the argument. Trawl through pseudo and trash to read his other efforts if you feel like a laugh.

I did a summary about some of his responses some time ago (cf. post #68),
so it is not necessary for others to plow through all the content he has created up to now.

Nice one

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What you have to remember is the OP is a nut, he's been posting variations of his SS"theory" for quite a while. He ignores anything that contradicts his nonsense and just repeats the same assertions, occasionally he starts a new threadrather than address any of the points made against him when it is obvious he is losing the argument. Trawl through pseudo and trash to read his other efforts if you feel like a laugh.

It is unbelievable!

In one hand you claim that I do not address your point, while in the other hand some of you try to trash my messages. Every discussion is like a fight. There is no benefit
for this correspondence.

It is clear that you do not want to hear about my Theory.

I do appreciate your knowledge in the Big bang theory.

Based on the BBT, the age of the universe had been calculated by extrapolation of galaxies velocities. It is believed that the size of the universe is as far as we can see.

Therefore, by definition the Earth should be the center of the universe. Wow!!! Applause for this wisdom! Applause to Ariston!

This is ridicules! Don't you think that the universe must be bigger than what we see??? Much, much bigger… In the same token, the age of the universe should be bigger than 13.75 Billion. Much, much bigger… For an Infinite universe, you need an infinite age!

However,my theory is based on a very simple evidence. It is - the drifting planet Phenomenon.

So far we know that the Moon is drifting away from the Earth, while the Earth is drifting away from the sun.

Based on that, I assume that any planet or Moon in the Universe should drift outwards from its hosting star. Therefore, all the planets in the solar system must drift outwards, while the sun should drift outwards from the center of the Milky Way.

If you can prove that there is even one planet or moon in the Universe which is drifting inwards than there is a severe error in my theory.

Never the less, I have no intention to argue with you anymore.

Just let me know about a single planet in the whole universe which is drifting inwards from its hosting star.


Thanks

See, nuts...

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Based on the BBT, the age of the universe had been calculated by extrapolation of galaxies velocities.

That was the initial evidence. There are now many other lines of evidence all consistent. The most important is the temperature of the CMB.

It is believed that the size of the universe is as far as we can see.

Absolutely not. The universe is thought to be much larger. Maybe infinite.

Therefore, by definition the Earth should be the center of the universe.

Again, definitely not. Modern cosmology does not place the Earth at the centre. The most plausible description of the universe doesn't have a center.

It is this level of repeated ignorance of mainstream science that leads to severe criticism of your approach. Your usual reaction is not to ask questions and learn more, nor do you present any evidence to support your ideas. All you do when questioned is get very emotional and start insulting people.

However,my theory is based on a very simple evidence.

And yet you have never presented any evidence, other than your own misunderstanding and misrepresentations (see above).

My response was pithier

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Based on the BBT, the age of the universe had been calculated by extrapolation of galaxies velocities.

observable universe

That was the initial evidence. There are now many other lines of evidence all consistent. The most important is the temperature of the CMB.

It is believed that the size of the universe is as far as we can see.

Absolutely not. The universe is thought to be much larger. Maybe infinite.

Therefore, by definition the Earth should be the center of the universe.

Again, definitely not. Modern cosmology does not place the Earth at the centre. The most plausible description of the universe doesn't have a center.

It is this level of repeated ignorance of mainstream science that leads to severe criticism of your approach. Your usual reaction is not to ask questions and learn more, nor do you present any evidence to support your ideas. All you do when questioned is get very emotional and start insulting people.

However,my theory is based on a very simple evidence.

what evidence?????

And yet you have never presented any evidence, other than your own misunderstanding and misrepresentations (see above).

wouldn/t you see blasting galaxies in a steady state universe?

Well, I have no extra power to fight with anyone. I do not want to insult anyone and I do not want to be insulted. In any case, if I start an answer, than my "good friends" will surly ask to trash my reply.
Therefore, I have decided that I'm not going to have any sort of negotiation with them.
However, as I do not recall any correspondence with you, I'm ready to give you some answers. Never the less, I'm quite sure that my good friend will ask to trash also this reply…
I had just one request to them – " Just let me know about a single planet in the whole universe which is drifting inwards from its hosting star"–but so far I didn't get an answer for that.
I promise to all of you that if you can prove that issue, I'm not going to intrude you anymore. Promise!
Anyhow, this phenomenon is the most critical element for our understanding how the universe had been created. The Idea is quite simple - if any planet in the universe is drifting outwards, than in any disc system the stars must drift outwards. Any spiral galaxy is a disc system. Therefore, by definition, all the stars in spiral galaxies must drift outwards. There is clear evidence that the supper massive black hole in the Milky Way spits matter and there is a significant star formation activity in the center. Therefore, any spiral galaxy has the ability to create new matter and new stars!

Originally Posted by curious mind

Absolutely not. The universe is thought to be much larger. Maybe infinite.

.
Thanks! It was always clear to me that the Universe is Infinite. You can see it in all my replies. If we could be at agalaxy which is 15 billion light years away from us, we should see a similar universe as we see it from here. (Of course, it will be different galaxies, but the sky view will be similar). Same idea - if we could be at a galaxy that is 100 billion light away or 1 billion over billion light years away. I do believe that the universe which we see is like a grain of sand from the real universe.
However, if you believe that the universe is infinite, how could it be created in 13.75 Billion years or even 100 billion years? It is clear to me that an infinite time is needed to create an infinite Universe. Any current mainstream theory which contradicts this idea is a pure nonsense!!!

Originally Posted by curious mind

That was the initial evidence. There are now many other lines of evidence allconsistent. The most important is the temperature of the CMB.

The CMB is like a shadow. If you see a shadow of an elephant, does it mean that you see a real elephant??? I do not think that the CMB can give any real evidence of the universe age.
I personally have a theory for the source of the CMB. (In different discussion)
In any case, the age of the universe is significantly higher from 13.75 billion years. Therefore, there is a severe error in the current concept of the age of stars and galaxies.
For example – based on my theory, the whole solar system had been created at the same time at the center of the Milky way galaxy. Therefore, if we could find the drifting velocity of the solar system from the center of the galaxy, we could calculate its real age.
Thanks,
You can trash this reply – as usual, but please do not insult me as I think differently.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

I do not think that the CMB can give any real evidence of the universe age.

So you don't understand the existing theory, you don't understand the evidence so you prefer your beliefs. Fine. Just as long as you admit that is not science.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If you see a shadow of an elephant, does it mean that you see a real elephant?

Perhaps not, but it does mean that you are not seeing the shadow of a giraffe.

Originally Posted by KJW

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If you see a shadow of an elephant, does it mean that you see a real elephant?

Perhaps not, but it does mean that you are not seeing the shadow of a giraffe.

Yes, agree.

This shadow can't give a clear indication for the Elephant – BBT, while I have no expectation that it will give any indication for Giraffe… However, I have a confidence in the Giraffe – New Theory - based on some simple evidences.
It is amazing that whole of those clever scientists can't see this simple solution.

what is truly amazing is that you can't see how your idea has been thoroughly refuted in many threads, the level of delusion / wilfull ignorance you display is staggering... Now, predictably like a true crackpot, you will show I am correct by claiming your idea hasn't been shown to be wrong and I invite anyone who is interested to read your other threads and see for themselves the reality of the matter. You're a nut :shrug:

If the Universe is much larger than what we see (Maybe infinite), do you agree that it's age should be much more than 13.8 Billion years?

Not unless you provide evidence that is better than the current evidence and theory we have (that you either ignore or don't understand) that points to that age :shrug:

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If the Universe is much larger than what we see (Maybe infinite), do you agree that it's age should be much more than 13.8 Billion years?

No. Please go and learn a tiny little bit about the theory you are criticising.

Don't take it so personally. It's just a theory.
I have asked a simple question. Try to give a simple answer.
So let me try to help;
1. Is it possible that the Universe is larger than what we see? (Yes or No)
2. If no – Than the BBT is the ultimate theory. Any other theory is Incorrect. (Yes or No)
3. If yes – Chose one of the following answers:

1. No effect of the Universe age - The age of the universe is 13.8 even if the size of the universe is Infinite. (Yes or No)
2. The size of the universe has an effect on it's age. Therefore, the age of the universe should be higher than 13.8 Billion years.

In this case, chose one of the following:
1. Even if the age is higher than 13.8 Billion Years, it does not contradicts the BBT Theory. (Yes or No)
If the age is higher than It might have some negative effect on the BBT theory. However, as there is no other theory we should ignore this issue. (Yes or No)

1. If the age of the universe is higher than 13.8 Billion, than it might be an indication that there is a severe error in the BBT theory. (Yes or No)

I'm not taking anything personally, I'm just astounded at your level of wilful ignorance, also it's not a "theory", it's your unsupported speculation.

We have tried to explain why your wild-assed guesses and speculation or "simple logic" are wrong too many times for me to waste any more time on it, go back and read your other threads...

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If the Universe is much larger than what we see (Maybe infinite), do you agree that it's age should be much more than 13.8 Billion years?

No. Please go and learn a tiny little bit about the theory you are criticising.

Why no?
The age of 13.8 Billion years was a direct outcome of extrapolation of the visible Universe. If the universe is larger, than by definition the age should be bigger. So simple! Why is it so difficult for you to agree on a simple issue.

Why are you unable to read and understand the content of post #11? It is in simple English, is the issue because it shows you are wrong?

What is your emotional dislike of the theory based on? (It obviously isn't a scientific objection, so I assume it is just some sort of gut instinct.) Or is it a religious problem? Does your Holy Book say that the universe is infinitely old? If so which religion is that? As far as I know, every religion has a "creation" story.

Anyway, on to your profoundly ignorant questions:

1. Is it possible that the Universe is larger than what we see? (Yes or No)

Possible and almost certainly true.

2. If no – Than the BBT is the ultimate theory. Any other theory is Incorrect. (Yes or No)

There is no "ultimate theory". All theories are subject to falsification or modification. That is what makes them theories.

No effect of the Universe age - The age of the universe is 13.8 even if the size of the universe is Infinite. (Yes or No)

Yes. According to our current models.

The size of the universe has an effect on it's age. Therefore, the age of the universe should be higher than 13.8 Billion years.

No. Obviously false.

1. Even if the age is higher than 13.8 Billion Years, it does not contradicts the BBT Theory. (Yes or No)

It wouldn't contradict the theory. But it would be inconsistent with what we currently observe.

If the age of the universe is higher than 13.8 Billion, than it might be an indication that there is a severe error in the BBT theory. (Yes or No)

Your questions doesn't really make much sense. (And once again demonstrate how little you know.) If the age is determined from the observational evidence and the big bang model, then it isn't inconsistent with the model.

How are you going to determine this greater age? You need an alternative model that fits ALL the observations at least as well as the current model. No steady state theory has been able to do that, which is why they were abandoned. As your "theory" makes no attempt to model anything it can't be tested against the observational data and therefore can't be used to predict the age of the universe.

Just saying "but I don't like the big bang model" isn't science.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

The age of 13.8 Billion years was a direct outcome of extrapolation of the visible Universe. If the universe is larger, than by definition the age should be bigger. So simple! Why is it so difficult for you to agree on a simple issue.[/FONT][/COLOR]

You have had these things explained to you repeatedly. You appear to have have some sort of mental block against learning anything. Please go and study some science.

Originally Posted by Strange

"The age of the universe is 13.8 even if the size of the universe is Infinite". According to our current models.

Thanks
Now your message is clear.

Originally Posted by Strange

How are you going to determine this greater age? You need an alternative model that fits ALL the observations at least as well as the current model. No steady state theory has been able to do that, which is why they were abandoned. As your "theory" makes no attempt to model anything it can't be tested against the observational data and therefore can't be used to predict the age of the universe.

Just saying "but I don't like the big bang model" isn't science.

Yes, I have one.
And I'm willing to share it with you.
However, for this discussion, I would mostly appreciate if you can ignore all the current theories of the BBT, Dark energy, dark matter, expansion, steady state… and focus only on the observations. Do you agree?

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Yes, I have one.

You have a detailed mathematical model that is consistent with all the evidence? Really? Forgive me if I don't believe you.

But if you have, then submit it to a science journal. Don't waste your time here.

Your model must provide quantitative (i.e. mathematically derived) explanations for:

• Hubble's law
• Existence of the blackbody CMB.
• Relative abundances of hydrogen deuterium, helium and lithium isotopes
• The observed fluctuations in the CMBR
• Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
• And many other things.

Wow;
You are asking for model that must provide quantitative (i.e. mathematically derived) explanations for several aspects.
While in the same token you agree with the current model which confirms that "The age of the universe is 13.8 even if the size of the universe is Infinite".
What kind of model is it? How could it be that in relatively short time (13.8 Billion years) you can create an infinite Universe?
The formula for distance is:
S= V * T
S– Distance, V – velocity (Speed) T – Time.
So, if the distance of the Universe is infinite then by definition the Velocity or the time must be infinite.
As the velocity can't be infinite, how the model can overcome on this obstacle by using finite time?
Even if we try to bypass it by space expention, dark energy or even dark magic, we still need to meet this formula.
So, before I can introduce my theory, can you please explain how is it possible setting an infinite Universe in a limited time?
How the science can accept this idea?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If the Universe is much larger than what we see (Maybe infinite), do you agree that it's age should be much more than 13.8 Billion years?

No. Please go and learn a tiny little bit about the theory you are criticising.

it could be, but that wouldn't make current findings obsolete. if it came out to be true, physics would just open a new chapter.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

You are asking for model that must provide quantitative (i.e. mathematically derived) explanations for several aspects.

I assume that means you don't have one. Not surprising.

What kind of model is it?

A detailed mathematical model based on evidence.
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, before I can introduce my theory, can you please explain how is it possible setting an infinite Universe in a limited time?

No point. You have already demonstrated that you are closed minded.

How the science can accept this idea?

EVIDENCE.

See, that is the difference between science and closed-minded morons. Scientists accept what the evidence says, whether they like it or not. Morons reject the evidence based on emotion. Which do you choose to be?

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

... There is clear evidence that the supper massive black hole in the Milky Way spits matter and there is a significant star formation activity in the center. Therefore, any spiral galaxy has the ability to create new matter and new stars! ...

No.

Black Holes do not spit out matter in this way. You are possibly making the common mistake of thinking polar jets are coming from the black hole. There is no new matter being created here.

I'm sure this has been explained to him before, he seems to have a mental block that makes him immune to any information that contradicts his fantasies, he just can't seem to acknowledge or comprehend it, one of the hallmarks of a hardened crank.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by DaveLee

What kind of model is it?

A detailed mathematical model based on evidence.
Einsteinfield equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
Lambda-CDMmodel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, none of your models gives an explanation for infinite universe.
On the contrary, the Accelerated Expansion of the Universe is a clear map for finite Universe. There is an end for the edge of the Universe after 13.7 Billion years.
Therefore, this is not a model for infinite universe.
So let's read again the key idea for the Big Bang Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe.^[1] The key idea is that the universeis expanding."
"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 model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe"
"Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus consideredthe age of the universe"
O.K.
If the Universe is finite, then it is quite clear to set the extrapolation. But as the universe is Infinite, there is no logic to set the extrapolation. As we go back on time more and more matter is coming from the Infinite Universe.
Therefore, there is no moment in time that we can state: " all matter in the universe was contained in a single point"
Hence, there is no meaning for extrapolation on infinite universe.
The outcome is that there is a severe error in the Big bang theory!!!

You're just proving our point :shrug:

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Sorry, none of your models gives an explanation for infinite universe.

The models work equally whether the universe is infinite or not. If you disagree with this, please provide a detailed mathematical proof based on the Einstein Field Equations. "I don't believe it" is not a valid proof.

The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[35] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed.

Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The outcome is that there is a severe error in the Big bang theory!!!

The severe error is in your ability to understand and learn basic concepts.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Sorry, none of your models gives an explanation for infinite universe.

The models work equally whether the universe is infinite or not. If you disagree with this, please provide a detailed mathematical proof based on the Einstein Field Equations. "I don't believe it" is not a valid proof.

I don't agree with this statement. Infinite Universe must have a different model than finite Universe. It's not an issue of believe. It's a basic common sense.
You have suggested the following articles:
"A detailed mathematical model based on evidence.
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
None of those articles discuss on Infinite Universe. (Including Einstein)
You ignore my question. Instead, and as usual, if you have no real answer, it's time for humiliation.

Originally Posted by Strange

The severe error is in your ability to understand and learn basic concepts.

I have no intention to insult you.
However, this is the end of our discussion.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

I don't agree with this statement. Infinite Universe must have a different model than finite Universe. It's not an issue of believe. It's a basic common sense.

Common sense is of no value. The whole point of science is to get round the inadequacies of common sense. If you cannot provide a mathematical proof that the FLRW metric is wrong or evidence in conflict with the Lambda-CDM model, you have nothing to contribute.

End of discussion!

Thank f*** for that, please don't start another one, all your threads simply show your ignorance and lack of understanding of how science works.

I'm not going to treat lack of basic human respect.

Respect is earned, you get none because of your persistence with stupidity and misconceptions after they have been pointed out as such. How much respect are you showing by repeatedly posting bullshit and ignoring all evidence that shows just how bloody stupid you are?

Originally Posted by curious mind

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If the Universe is much larger than what we see (Maybe infinite), do you agree that it's age should be much more than 13.8 Billion years?

No. Please go and learn a tiny little bit about the theory you are criticising.

it could be, but that wouldn't make current findings obsolete. if it came out to be true, physics would just open a new chapter.

Thanks

I have seen this user "PhDemon" on a few of my threads as well he seems hesitant to change in his ideas. Hopefully he will become more open to ideas and disprove them by science not belief.

I'm happy to change my ideas in the face of evidence (it happens in my job almost every day) if you ever understand what evidence is and provide some you may be taken seriously until then I'll just leave you to your ignorance and pointless fantasies as you obviously are unwilling or unable to discuss things scientifically :shrug:

Originally Posted by PhDemon

I'm happy to change my ideas in the face of evidence (it happens in my job almost every day) if you ever understand what evidence is and provide some you may be taken seriously until then I'll just leave you to your ignorance and pointless fantasies as you obviously are unwilling or unable to discuss things scientifically :shrug:

I respect that sir and my comment in regards to you was not negative it was simply my observations of your posts. Based on my experience I have posted undeniable evidence of my own term.

I don't want to trash this thread so please continue the discussion on my thread.

Until you learn what evidence is and get rid of the misconception you have provided some there's no point.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

So, before I can introduce my theory, can you please explain how is it possible setting an infinite Universe in a limited time?
How the science can accept this idea?

Hi Dave

One of the problematic issues surrounding scientific theories is that they are based on known observations at a particular point in time and while valid in a certain restricted domain, ultimately may be overturned as our observational domain is extended. We have to be very careful in making categoric statements based on our own 'very limited' observational slice of this universe. For example, a major assumption that we may think is logical to make is that the universe extends beyond our hubble horizon simply as we have a conviction that the universe 'must' extend beyond this point as we see very distant galaxies go 'off the radar' with our current acceptance of an accelerating universal model. This may be flavour of the month now but not necessarily the complete picture.

There are some very intriguing ideas being looked at in the Loop Quantum Gravity camp that is working on the principle that rather than 'parrallel universes' an observer at each point in spacetime occupies their own distinct universe that extends to their current horizon (personal hubble volume). Different observers may share portions of each other's hubble volume and when in close proximity such as our galaxy (will be able to have a shared viewpoint) whereas those observers placed outside the light cone of another observer will never share the same reality unless each observer's light cones intersect. Models such as this is have the potential to throw our current 'Boolean' logic out the window and dramatically alter what we would define as 'our universe'.

....anyway what the above demonstrates is that scientific enquiry always remains open to new ideas so we need to be careful when makjing definitive statements such as 'if the universe is 13.8 B years old, then it must be finite' as the very definition of your universe may be incorrect.

In regards to the Standard Model when talking about a universe that is 13.8B yrs old in the context of an infinite universe, what the model is actually saying is that the 'observable universe' is 13.8B yrs old. We really don't know how old it is but through extrapolation we can determine with current projections what we think the minimum age may be based on our current best theories. Obviously in the context then of an infinite 'single' universe (excluding multi-verses and parralel universes etc.) we could imagine an infinite state of which our 'observable universe' may have emanated from a single infintesimal point in that context, and with a bit of a push from inflation (if this hypothesis stands the test of time) expanded to or beyond our hubble horizon.

I hope this helps a bit.

Originally Posted by ScienceNoob

I have seen this user "PhDemon" on a few of my threads as well he seems hesitant to change in his ideas. Hopefully he will become more open to ideas and disprove them by science not belief.

A brief remark about PhDemon and some of the other scientists.
I do understand their frustration. I do understand why they are doing whatever it takes to kick me out of this discussion. They just do not want to hear any negative feedback about the Big Bang and the mainstream Theory.
For example – Let's think about priests in a church. Assuming that someone will get in and claims that he has a clear evidence that there is a sever error in the Bible. The priests might first try to explain him friendly that he has a fatal error in his new theory. However, if he will insist they will probably kick him out of the church.
This is similar situation –
I came in, waiving with my new theory and expecting that those people, will accept my message. This is a fantasy. They don't want to hear about any new theory or any new evidence. They just want me to go away. Therefore, it was my mistake. I assume that I have to look for different platform to publish my theory.

Just more crank lies from Dave You are the one behaving most like a religious nut, sticking with your nonsense with a faith that will not budge in the face of argument or evidence...

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

For example – Let's think about priests in a church. Assuming that someone will get in and claims that he has a clear evidence that there is a sever error in the Bible. The priests might first try to explain him friendly that he has a fatal error in his new theory. However, if he will insist they will probably kick him out of the church.

Faulty analogies cause a loss in one's credibility if they are used more than once (cf. post #8).

I came in, waiving with my new theory and expecting that those people, will accept my message. This is a fantasy. They don't want to hear about any new theory or any new evidence. They just want me to go away. Therefore, it was my mistake. I assume that I have to look for different platform to publish my theory.

Try viXra. It supports PDF and LaTeX.

He has no credibility to lose, his ignorance, evasions and intellectual dishonesty saw to that...

Originally Posted by PhDemon

He has no credibility to lose, his ignorance, evasions and intellectual dishonesty saw to that...

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Faulty analogies cause a loss in one's credibility if they are used more than once

Some of us used the same idea more than twice. Much more...
However, if it makes them happy, they are more than welcome to continue with their frustration.

To my mind it is not the repetition that is necessarily the problem with your posts, it is the avoidance of addressing criticism of your "theory", your inability or unwillingness to learn (it is obvious from your posts you understand very little about the BBT or what it says) and your pseudoscientific approach coupled with a distinct lack of integrity and occassionally outright dishonesty in claiming you have provided evidence and no one has rebutted your arguments (and yes unless you are collossally stupid or have cognitive difficulties this is dishonest as is the offensive assumpion that you have stated a number of times that we are blinded by prejudices against new ideas and just can't see your brilliance - this just makes you look like a deluded dick as well as dishonest ).

Originally Posted by ImplicateOrder

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

So, before I can introduce my theory, can you please explain how is it possible setting an infinite Universe in a limitedtime?
How the science can accept this idea?

In regards to the Standard Model when talking about a universe that is 13.8Byrs old in the context of an infinite universe, what the model is actually saying is that the 'observable universe' is 13.8B yrs old.

Thanks
I do appreciate your answer.
The big bang theory had been created few decades ago while the scientists believed that the size of the Universe is limited to what we see.
However, if those scientists knew at that time that the universe is infinite, they would probably try a different Theory.
Today– we are locked in a theory which is not relevant to the current evidences. We can try harder and harder to fit it.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

[ We reallydon't know how old it is but through extrapolation we can determine with current projections what we think the minimum age may be based on our currentbest theories. Obviously in the context then of an infinite 'single' universe(excluding multi-verses and parralel universes etc.) we could imagine aninfinite state of which our 'observable universe' may have emanated from asingle infintesimal point in that context, and with a bit of a push from inflation (if this hypothesis stands the test of time) expanded to or beyond our hubble horizon.

But, we can also try free our self and open our eyes.
If the age of the Universe is bigger than 13.75 Billion years, than the age of the stars and galaxies are bigger. In this case, the current formula to calculate the age of objects in the universe might be incorrect.
This has a sever impact on our understanding of the current universe.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Originally Posted by ImplicateOrder

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

So, before I can introduce my theory, can you please explain how is it possible setting an infinite Universe in a limitedtime?
How the science can accept this idea?

In regards to the Standard Model when talking about a universe that is 13.8Byrs old in the context of an infinite universe, what the model is actually saying is that the 'observable universe' is 13.8B yrs old.

Thanks
I do appreciate your answer.
The big bang theory had been created few decades ago while the scientists believed that the size of the Universe is limited to what we see.
However, if those scientists knew at that time that the universe is infinite, they would probably try a different Theory.
Today– we are locked in a theory which is not relevant to the current evidences. We can try harder and harder to fit it.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

[ We reallydon't know how old it is but through extrapolation we can determine with current projections what we think the minimum age may be based on our currentbest theories. Obviously in the context then of an infinite 'single' universe(excluding multi-verses and parralel universes etc.) we could imagine aninfinite state of which our 'observable universe' may have emanated from asingle infintesimal point in that context, and with a bit of a push from inflation (if this hypothesis stands the test of time) expanded to or beyond our hubble horizon.

But, we can also try free our self and open our eyes.
If the age of the Universe is bigger than 13.75 Billion years, than the age of the stars and galaxies are bigger. In this case, the current formula to calculate the age of objects in the universe might be incorrect.
This has a sever impact on our understanding of the current universe.

Dave, I am as dishevelled as you in the Standard Model of Cosmology however to overturn this beast we at least need alternate proposals that can exceed the confirmatory evidence that supports that model. Probably a lot of us here have our own pet theories regarding this and in engaging ways we promote discussions on alternative viewpoints without having to take such a dogged stance that get's us nowhere and ends in flame wars. It's your choice whether you want a confrontational or interesting time on this forum or not. When I came to this forum I had to go on a steep learning curve to embrace some of the personalities here, but with a bit of skillful manouevering, you can pick the brains of the members here without having to so doggedly adopt confrontational positions here.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

Dave, I am as dishevelled as you in the Standard Model of Cosmology.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

however to overturn this beast we at least need alternate proposals that can exceed the confirmatory evidence that supports that model.

Why? Why the scientists do not except the simple true that there might be an error in the current model of cosmology? Why do we need to come with alternative proposal?
And if we try to come with proposal – we create frustrated Scientists…
I have full confidence that:

1. There is a severe error in the current Standard of Cosmology.
2. The Universe is much bigger than what we see. It might be infinite.
3. The age of the universe is much bigger than 13.75. It might be infinite.
4. There is a severe error in the age of the galaxies and stars. For example – the age of the Earth is much bigger than the current theory.
5. I have developed new theory which explains every bit of the Universe!!!

Unfortunately – so far all my messages had been trashed.
If you wish, I can explain you step by step why this new theory could be fully correct and how we can prove or disapprove it!

You see, the fact you post this after all you have been told in your other threads and all the explanations you have been given is EXACTLY the intellectual dishonesty I was talking about. You sir, are a liar or a fool.

In this case, the current formula to calculate the age of objects in the universe might be incorrect.
This has a sever impact on our understanding of the current universe.

no, current observations match the age of objects. that's why i said physics will just open a new chapter. things might be different, but the law of physics still apply.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

Dave, I am as disheveled as you in the Standard Model of Cosmology however to overturn this beast we at least need alternate proposals that can exceed the confirmatory evidence that supports that model. Probably a lot of us here have our own pet theories regarding this and in engaging ways we promote discussions on alternative viewpoints without having to take such a dogged stance that get's us nowhere and ends in flame wars. It's your choice whether you want a confrontational or interesting time on this forum or not. When I came to this forum I had to go on a steep learning curve to embrace some of the personalities here, but with a bit of skillful maneuvering, you can pick the brains of the members here without having to so doggedly adopt confrontational positions here.

Well said, we do indeed have some alternate ideas. But be that as it may, it still helps to have a very solid understanding of the current standard model of the universe before you attempt to present alternative explanations. There are many attempts to explain everything about our universe and some of those attempts just don't cut it in my book. When I find things that do not have a reasonable explanation, I feel more justified in thinking about alternative explanations. I find that as long as I don't get confrontational and expect others to believe I'm right, I usually get along very well with the others.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but they need to stay away from suggesting it is the truth about reality. If some of the best thinkers on the planet aren't getting it right there's not much chance you are either. But new ideas have a way getting out there if they are interesting and present possibilities others will work, on them.

Originally Posted by curious mind

In this case, the current formula to calculate the age of objects in the universe might be incorrect.
This has a sever impact on our understanding of the current universe.

no, current observations match the age of objects.

Metallicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age."
So, The science is using the metallicity to get an indication of object age.
However, this is based on Big Bang theory that:
"When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and only trace amounts of lithium and beryllium and no heavier elements."
" Therefore, older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun."
But, what if there is an error in the Big bang theory? What if the universe had been formed differently from the current cosmology module? What if all the stars had been created on a different procedure?

Originally Posted by curious mind

that's why i said physics will just open a new chapter. things might be different, but the law of physics still apply.

Can we call it Physics?
Why the science is using the Big bang theory to get an indication for star age?
If there is an error in this theory, than by definition there might be an error in star age.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Originally Posted by curious mind

In this case, the current formula to calculate the age of objects in the universe might be incorrect.
This has a sever impact on our understanding of the current universe.

no, current observations match the age of objects.

Metallicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age."
So, The science is using the metallicity to get an indication of object age.
However, this is based on Big Bang theory that:
"When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and only trace amounts of lithium and beryllium and no heavier elements."
" Therefore, older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun."
But, what if there is an error in the Big bang theory? What if the universe had been formed differently from the current cosmology module? What if all the stars had been created on a different procedure?

Originally Posted by curious mind

that's why i said physics will just open a new chapter. things might be different, but the law of physics still apply.

Can we call it Physics?
Why the science is using the Big bang theory to get an indication for star age?
If there is an error in this theory, than by definition there might be an error in star age.

todays physics/science fits our observable universe. the BBT is where our science starts, but it doesn't have to be the beginning of the universe.

so if it should be that 1 day we find out, that the 13.7 billion years only turned out to be a line that we just weren't able to cross, doesn't make current science wrong.

just like newton's laws works for near objects, but had to be replaced with relativity/SR, we'll most probably have to improve/replace SR past that point. but that doesn't make einstein's work wrong.

it might give us answers about dark matter/energy and/or expansion.

Originally Posted by curious mind

Today's physics/science fits our observable universe. the BBT is where our science starts, but it doesn't have to be the beginning of the universe.

So if it should be that 1 day we find out, that the 13.7 billion years only turned out to be a line that we just weren't able to cross, doesn't make current science wrong.

Just like newton's laws works for near objects, but had to be replaced with relativity/SR, we'll most probably have to improve/replace SR past that point. but that doesn't make Einstein's work wrong.

it might give us answers about dark matter/energy and/or expansion.

I've been trying to stay away from this thread, but I like the way some of you think. I get around the age of the universe question by assuming that the big bang event simply created our local universe. It didn't happen as a one of a kind event out of nothing. It had a place for it to happen, a place where big bangs are natural.

By the time we came along our local universe had already expanded beyond our ability to see what's outside of our local universe. I can't prove it, but no one can disprove it either. Anyway our local universe is about 13.8 billion years old and I would say the larger main universe could be infinite in both size and time.

Yes I do favor belief in a multiverse and they're are many scientists that also favor that concept. But unfortunately everyone's concept of what a multiverse really looks like can be very different. multiverse - Bing Images

I'm not going to explore my ideas at this time, but I can say they are original, and no one else has ever expressed this idea that I am aware of.

Thanks
As we agree that some modification might be needed to the current cosmology modules, let me introduce my new theory – step by step.
Step one – Earth and moon.
The Earth is orbiting the Sun, while the Moon is orbiting the Earth. However, we all know that the earth is drifting away from the sun while the moon is drifting away from the Earth.
In one hand we can say that two planets (if we can consider the moon as some sort of planet) are drifting outwards from their hosting star.
As there are billions over billions of planets in the Universe, this might be a neglected evidence.
But, on the other hand we can say that we have tested only two planets and both of them are drifting outwards. Therefore, out of all the planets that we have tested (Only two objects) 100% of them are drifting outwards.
It sounds as question in statistics...
However, this is the Key element of my new theory!!!
This theory is based on the Idea that all the planets in the Universe are drifting outwards from their hosting star.
It is absolutely incorrect - If we can prove that there is even one planet in the Universe which is drifting inwards.
So, as we currently can't fully disapprove this concept, let's assume that all the planets are drifting outwards and try to see what could be the impact of this assumption.
Step two – Disc System
All the planets are located in some sort of a disc system.
The solar system is one example.
As we assume that all the planets are drifting outwards, than we can also assume that all the stars is any disc system are drifting outwards!!!
However, spiral galaxy is a disc system by definition.
Hence, all the stars in spiral galaxy must drift outwards.
Let's stop at this step. Please let me know your advice.

I started responding to this but then thought what's the point, he will just ignore it (again) and stick with his fantasy replaying this same tired nonsense over and over while dishonestly pretending no one has shown him to be wrong. Irredeemable crackpot.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If we can prove that there is even one planet in the Universe which is drifting inwards.

What about PSR B1913+16?

Originally Posted by KJW

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If we can prove that there is even one planet in the Universe which is drifting inwards.

What about PSR B1913+16?

Thanks
However,it is not a planet.
"PSR B1913+16 (also known as PSR J1915+1606 and PSR1913+16) is a pulsar(a radiating neutron star) which together with another neutron staris in orbit around a common centerof mass, thus forming a binary star system"
I'm looking for a planet in a disc system.
For example – Mars or Venus.
I hope that NASA could verify the drifting direction of Mars. This could help us understanding this key issue.

With Regards to Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
"Landforms visible on Mars strongly suggest that liquid water has at least at timesexisted on the planet's surface."
"One of the largerexamples, Ma'adim Vallis is 700 km long and much biggerthan the Grand Canyon with a width of 20 km and a depth of 2 km insome places. It is thought to have been carved by flowing water early in Mars 'history"
So, Mars was covered with water.
This water could exist only if the temperature is similar to what we have today on Earth.
The Earth is located at the Habitable Zone
One in Five Stars Has Earth-sized Planet in Habitable Zone | W. M. Keck Observatory
Mars is too far away.
However, in order to sustain water on Mars, it must have been in the past in this Habitable Zone.
Therefore, this could be an indication that in the past, Mars was closer to the Sun.
Hence– Mars is drifting away from the Sun.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Originally Posted by KJW

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

If we can prove that there is even one planet in the Universe which is drifting inwards.

What about PSR B1913+16?

However,it is not a planet.

In your post from which I quoted, you used the example of the moon orbiting the earth. But the moon is not a planet. Nevertheless, you said "if we can consider the moon as some sort of planet", indicating that you were being somewhat loose with the definition of a "planet". This is fair enough except you decided to tighten the definition when I mentioned PSR B1913+16, creating a double-standard. If Jupiter were somewhat bigger, then it could ignite to form a star which would be part of a binary star system with the sun. Thus, it would appear that you have made a somewhat arbitrary boundary between a planet and not a planet.

wouldn't have roughly 5 billion years been enough to move us outside the habitable zone already then? also how much warmer the universe has been back then?

and how about drift from near passing objects like bigger meteorites? couldn't that be a reason?

and is the increasing distance earth-moon, consistent with the the increasing distance earth-sun?

*sits back to watch Dave's contorted crank logic come up with a way of ignoring evidence and arguments (again)*

Originally Posted by KJW

In your post from which I quoted, you used the example of the moon orbiting the earth. But the moon isnot a planet. Nevertheless, you said "if we can consider the moon as some sort of planet", indicating that you were being some what loose with the definition of a "planet".This is fair enough except you decided to tighten the definition when Imentioned PSR B1913+16, creating a double-standard. If Jupiter were somewhat bigger, then it could ignite to form a star which would be part of a binary star system with the sun. Thus, it would appear that you have made a somewhat arbitrary boundary between a planet and not a planet.

Yes, any moon could be a perfect example.
I'm looking for a star which is orbiting a host star and creates a disc system. However, the size of the orbiting star should be significantly lower than the host star. (Earth and Sun; Moon and Earth)
Therefore, any moon in the solar system could be a perfect example.
However, in your example it is a binary star system. Hence, I assume that it can't give a real indication to the expected behavior of a disc system.

thank god you can't trade the orbit on wall-street, it's the only thing that's still stable.

Thanks for the questions

Originally Posted by curious mind

wouldn't have roughly 5 billion years been enough to move us outside the habitable zone already then?

I have made a brief calculation;
Based on the current available info, the earth is drifting away from the sun by 15 cm per year. Therefore, 4.5 billion years ago, the distance between the sun and the Earth was closer by 670,000 k.m. Hence, I assume that it was wormer on earth.

Originally Posted by curious mind

also how much warmer the universe has been back then?

I have no idea how warmer it could be.

Originally Posted by curious mind

and how about drift from near passing objects like bigger meteorites? couldn't that be a reason?

No, we only need to focus on stars. (However, small moons are perfectly O.K.)

Originally Posted by curious mind

and is the increasing distance earth-moon, consistent with the increasing distance earth-sun?

There is no need for consistent between the two movements. We only need to verify that any orbiting star is drifting away from its host star.

but the moon's orbit should be wobbled then, shouldn't it?

Originally Posted by curious mind

but the moon's orbit should be wobbled then, shouldn't it?

Sorry, your question is not clear to me. What do you mean?

The distance from Earth to the Sun is 1 astronomical unit (150,000,000 km).
The distance from Mars to the Sun is 1.5 astronomical unit (225,000,000 km).
Let's assume that sometime in the past Mars must have been in the same location as the Earth today (Habitable Zone) in order to have the liquid water.
Therefore, let's make a brief calculation how long it might take for Mars to drift 0.5 astronomical unit (75,000,000 km).
We all know that the earth is drifting 15 c.m per year. Let's assume that Mars is drifting 1 m. per year (as it is further from the sun – it is expected that its drifting velocity will increase).
Therefore, it should drift one million k.m per billion years.
Hence, 75 Billion years is needed for Mars to move from the habitable zone to its current location.
This means that the min. age of mars is 75 Billion years!!!

Pure crackpottery With enough invalid assumptions you can "prove" anything, this is sadly typical of your approach, you would rather make dodgy assumptions than consult reality...

This is the same crackpot crap he's always posted.

TRASH IT.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

The distance from Earth to the Sun is 1 astronomical unit (150,000,000 km).
The distance from Mars to the Sun is 1.5 astronomical unit (225,000,000 km).
Let's assume that sometime in the past Mars must have been in the same location as the Earth today (Habitable Zone) in order to have the liquid water.
Therefore, let's make a brief calculation how long it might take for Mars to drift 0.5 astronomical unit (75,000,000 km).
We all know that the earth is drifting 15 c.m per year. Let's assume that Mars is drifting 1 m. per year (as it is further from the sun – it is expected that its drifting velocity will increase).
Therefore, it should drift one million k.m per billion years.
Hence, 75 Billion years is needed for Mars to move from the habitable zone to its current location.
This means that the min. age of mars is 75 Billion years!!!

Assume that snails can live in a vacuum.

A snail can move about a meter a minute.

A single a.u. is 150 million km.

Therefore, snails are billions of years old!!!

(See? Anyone can play!)

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

The distance from Earth to the Sun is 1 astronomical unit (150,000,000 km).
The distance from Mars to the Sun is 1.5 astronomical unit (225,000,000 km).
Let's assume that sometime in the past Mars must have been in the same location as the Earth today (Habitable Zone) in order to have the liquid water.
Therefore, let's make a brief calculation how long it might take for Mars to drift 0.5 astronomical unit (75,000,000 km).
We all know that the earth is drifting 15 c.m per year. Let's assume that Mars is drifting 1 m. per year (as it is further from the sun – it is expected that its drifting velocity will increase).
Therefore, it should drift one million k.m per billion years.
Hence, 75 Billion years is needed for Mars to move from the habitable zone to its current location.
This means that the min. age of mars is 75 Billion years!!!

so, you now explaining yourself why it doesn't work?

Originally Posted by curious mind

so, you now explaining yourself why it doesn't work?

Why? It was just a theoretical calculation. It has no real effect on the new theory.
The key issue is that any orbiting star in a disc system is drifting outwards. I hope that in the near future Nasa will verify the drifting direction and velocities of Mars. This will help us to make real calculation.

The key issue is that any orbiting star in a disc system is drifting outwards.

You've made this claim for years on other forums, and have never come up with any evidence. It's the same as your nonsense about matter spontaneously being created in the galactic center and moving outward.

A message to any frustrated scientist.
Your job should be much easier than mine.
I have to prove that any planet and any moon are drifting outwards.
You only have to find one in the whole Universe which is drifting inwards.
So far I have two evidences (Earth & Moon). You have none.
Please do whatever is needed to find this key evidence in order to trash this tread.

So far I have two evidences (Earth & Moon). You have none

It's been explained to you several times (but obviously not enough) that the drift of both the earth from the sun and the moon from the earth is due to tidal gravitational effects.

Originally Posted by AlexG

So far I have two evidences (Earth & Moon). You have none

It's been explained to you several times (but obviously not enough) that the drift of both the earth from the sun and the moon from the earth is due to tidal gravitational effects.

Hence, it is expected, that any planet and moon should drift outwards due to tidal gravitational effects. Therefore, this doesn't contradict the new theory. It actually supports it.
Thanks for the support.

But you're not talking about a planet-moon system. You talk about spontaneously generated matter moving outward from the galactic center without any mechanism.

Hence, it is expected,

So you take a single example, which you don't understand, and generalize that to the entire galaxy.
David, there's more than a little insanity in your posts.

Thanks to AlexG we all know that the Earth and moon should drift outwards due to tidal gravitational effects.
However, it seems that he is not fully satisfied that his explanation supports the Idea that all the planets and moons in the Universe must drift outwards.
Therefore, if the tidal gravitational effects drifts the Earth from the Sun, and the Moon from the Erath, he is requested to explain the following:
1. Why the Tidal gravitational forces shouldn't drift Mars and Venus from the Sun?
2. Why shouldn't it drift Europa Moon from Jupiter, or Titan Moon from Saturn?
3. Why this tidal force could perfectly affect the Earth but it shouldn't affect any other planet or moon in the solar system or in the whole Universe?
4. Is it expected that some of planets or moons might drift inwards? If so, which one, and why?

Originally Posted by AlexG

So far I have two evidences (Earth & Moon). You have none

It's been explained to you several times (but obviously not enough) that the drift of both the earth from the sun and the moon from the earth is due to tidal gravitational effects.

I have seen calculations on how much the Moon drifts in a year but how much does the Earth drift from the Sun in a year? Any idea anyone?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by AlexG

So far I have two evidences (Earth & Moon). You have none

It's been explained to you several times (but obviously not enough) that the drift of both the earth from the sun and the moon from the earth is due to tidal gravitational effects.

I have seen calculations on how much the Moon drifts in a year but how much does the Earth drift from the Sun in a year? Any idea anyone?

"Having such a precise yardstick allowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg to calculate, in 2004, that the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It's not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that's 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward."

Further the correspondences with AlexG, we can have better understanding on a behavior of frustrated scientists.
In one hand they try to convince that you have a fatal error in your assumptions. They try to give examples, explanations and evidences. Unfortunately for them, their feedback supports this new theory. Actually, they helped me a lot in the development of this theory. Therefore, they try today to avoid any sort of discussion on the real issue.
Instead, they mainly focus on my Intellectual disability and insanity. So far they have succeeded to trash most of my treads. I hope that at least for one time they will improve their ability to listen.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by AlexG

So far I have two evidences (Earth & Moon). You have none

It's been explained to you several times (but obviously not enough) that the drift of both the earth from the sun and the moon from the earth is due to tidal gravitational effects.

I have seen calculations on how much the Moon drifts in a year but how much does the Earth drift from the Sun in a year? Any idea anyone?

"Having such a precise yardstick allowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg to calculate, in 2004, that the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It's not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that's 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward."

sounds a bit like a quote from Why is the Earth moving away from the sun? - space - 01 June 2009 - New Scientist

So in a billion years how far does the Earth move?

The current value stands at 149,597,870.696 kilometres.

Just run the figures through excel and the answer was 150,000 k. or as a ratio compared to the current distance

1:1.001003

So it will be only a fractionally further after a billion years So on that basis I'd say the Earth is in about the same region as it was when it first formed.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So it will be only a fractionally further after a billion years So on that basis I'd say the Earth is in about the same region as it was when it first formed.

Yes - If we consider that the Earth had been formed 4.5 billion years ago.

No – If the age of the Earth is greater. I will explain it later on.

Dave, if even Bob thinks you are full of shit that should tell you something your overnight posts confirm to me you are an intellectually dishonest crank and/or incredibly stupid, ignore list... (unless you post in an actual science forum where I will again point out you are a nut for the benefit of casual readers -- all the regulars already know just how nuts you are).

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So it will be only a fractionally further after a billion years So on that basis I'd say the Earth is in about the same region as it was when it first formed.

Yes - If we consider that the Earth had been formed 4.5 billion years ago.

No – If the age of the Earth is greater. I will explain it later on.

It can't be any older than the Universe itself. It has to be younger than that, since we're made of elements that have come from previous stars. 4.5 or thereabouts seems reasonable.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Dave, if even Bob thinks you are full of shit that should tell you something your overnight posts confirm to me you are an intellectually dishonest crank and/or incredibly stupid, ignore list... (unless you post in an actual science forum where I will again point out you are a nut for the benefit of casual readers -- all the regulars already know just how nuts you are).

I had to read that again just to see who you were saying was full of shit! I haven't read the whole thread but I just doubled checked how much the Earth moves from the calculated tidal acceleration, as above.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

your overnight posts confirm to me you are an intellectually dishonest crank and/or incredibly stupid, ignore list....

Some other frustrated scientists can't except the basic idea that some people are living on the other side of the world…

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

It can't be any older than the Universe itself. It has to be younger than that, since we're made of elements that have come from previous stars. 4.5 or
thereabouts seems reasonable.

Please stay tune. Update will be given step by step.

Dave, I am frustrated with you, your ignorance and lies are incredibly frustrating to anyone who is isn't as stupid or dishonest as you are :shrug: no more I'm done with you, apparently you've been at this years and have never produced any evidence or rational arguments and have learned nothing, you are just another internet nut job who would be laughed at anywhere they tried to publish this crap. Delusions of adequacy pretty much sums you up.* ignore list edited*