0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:23:10The BBT doesn't offer any realistic process of creating that requested energy.It never claimed to.So, you just wasted a page or so saying it doesn't.We know that.There's some speculation about how it happened, but that's a different issue.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:23:10The BBT doesn't offer any realistic process of creating that requested energy.
1...Hence, as there is no Universe (inside or outside) and no space for both, what is the real meaning of outside? Outside of what?2. Now let's assume that there was energy outside. That energy must be located in some sort of space and location. In other words, do you agree that it must be located in a Universe that can be called Outside Universe?3. If so, why that Universe didn't use its energy to create there stars and galaxies? What could be the reason for him to transformed its energy to our none existence Universe?4. How the energy had been transformed from the outside Universe to the inside Universe? Please explain the energy transformation process between both locations. Do we know if all the energy of the outside universe had been transformed or just some of the energy?5. Do you agree that sometime in the past (if you wish - at the infinity time) there was no Universe and no energy, not inside, not outside, not above the inside and not below the outside? So, there was a time that there was virtually no energy at all. Hence, don't you agree that somehow we need to understand how the infinite or almost infinite energy that was requested to our universe had been created outside out of nothing?6. why do you insist for ONE TIME ONLY?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:23:10In theory D there is a clear explanation for the source of new energy.It's clear that it does not work, or at least, that if it works it does so by an ongoing breach of the known laws of physics happening all the time, in specific places and in a very carefully controlled way. Which is really lucky, isn't it?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:23:10In theory D there is a clear explanation for the source of new energy.
Theory D doesn't breach any known laws of physics at any given moment!
Theory D is the Only valid theory which at least offer a clear solution for the new energy creation process.
This isn't going to stop being a contradiction just because you keep asserting it.
This is not a real science.It is a speculated science!
Without it, the BBT is useless.
SorryThere is a clear contradiction in the BBT.
1. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:42:441. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.That actually isn't the case. Conservation of energy is based on time symmetry. If time started at the Big Bang, then there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. If that's so, then the Universe never had zero energy and therefore never went from a state of zero energy to a state of a large amount of energy. So conservation of energy was not broken at the Big Bang.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:42:441. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.
If time started at the Big Bang, then there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.
Conservation of energy is based on time symmetry.
Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?
If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?
Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?
once upon a time the energy in our universe was clearly Zero.
Conservation of energy is based on the idea of energy conservation.
You can't just claim that the energy was there.
After that, we have to ask if that total energy could come in a special delivery to the BBT and almost from nothing
Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?
The big bang has no control on the time.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?Which may very well have been at the Big Bang. We don't know of anything that came before that.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?It could have, but what evidence is there for any such "small" bang?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42You can't just claim that the energy was there.Why not? If the energy was there since the very first moment of time, then there was never a point where energy was created from nothing and thus no violation of energy conservation happened.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42You can't just claim that the energy was there.
.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?.I'm not. Take note how I said "if" the Big Bang was the beginning of time.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?.
The creation of energy violates conservation of energy regardless of how much (or how little) is created.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?In principle, no.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?
If you propose that the Universe started with a single black hole that eventually gave rise to a galaxy, and then that galaxy created more galaxies and so on, then that means that the total amount of matter (and therefore the total amount of gravity) in the Universe is constantly increasing.
If that is the case, then that means that galaxies should not be moving away from each other. Instead, the continuously increasing gravity should be pulling those galaxies together more and more strongly over time. We should therefore see galaxies getting closer to each other, not further away.
However, as we all agree that the time should start from the moment of the first energy, and we can even claim when was that time, than it is clear that before that time there was no energy in our Universe.
It almost sound that you mean that the energy was there before the Big bang.
If there was no energy before the Big Bang
If there was already energy before the Big bang
The key concept of the BBT that the energy is there for free, clearly violates conservation of energy.
there was no single moment without energy or time.
Lawrence had stated that gravity has a negative energy.
Therefore, the gravity of the Milky Way pushes away any star or other outside galaxy.
So, gravity actually pushes away the galaxies from each other.
All the galaxies are expanding due to gravity force.
Therefore, The key concept of the BBT that the energy is there for free, clearly violates conservation of energy.
Well of course there was no single moment without time. Time is what defines a moment in the first place. That doesn't mean that time goes infinitely far into the past, though.
Again, as I have already stated, there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time.
There is no such thing as time before time. It's an oxymoron.
In earlier posts, you denied the existence of negative energy.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:59:16All the galaxies are expanding due to gravity force.This has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said on this discussion board. Gravity pushes things away? Really? You know that's not true. If it was, you wouldn't be on Earth right now. It's gravity would have pushed you into space long ago. I honestly shouldn't even have to correct something like this. Even children know better than that.
Please look triangulum Galaxy – Messier 33.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gas-bridge-andromeda-triangulum-galaxy-collision_n_1589634"Observations from the National Science Foundation’s Green Bank Telescope, a massive radio instrument in Green Bank, W.Va., indicate that hydrogen gas may be streaming between the colossal Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, and its neighboring Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."Therefore, our scientists estimate that in the past those two galaxies may have had a close encounter or even collide with each other:"ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Two galaxies near our own Milky Way may have had a close encounter billions of years ago that created a vast bridge of gas that links them together to this day, a new study finds.
You seem to have also missed a point.We know that energy is conserved.It's not just that we have done experiments and checked.It follows from Noether's theorem that, for a universe symmetrical in time, energy must be conserved.And that criterion- a universe that is symmetrical in time - has existed since the beginning of time.
There is a fundamental difference between the one-off event of creation where time is not symmetrical and so the conservation laws do not apply, and your variation of the discredited idea of continuous generation which breaches the conservation laws.
You wish to believe that it took place 13.8 By ago at the Big bang moment.
I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.
As the time was always ticking (long before that 13.8BY),
My idea of continuous generation doesn't breach the conservation laws.
The added kinetic energy is due to Gravity energy.
What kind of force could push them away from each other while they are so close together? if it is not gravity, what is it?
The space was always there forever and ever!!!
Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?
You clearly don't believe that "Gravity pushes things away".
Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.That's only a problem if there was "empty space", but there wasn't.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43The space was always there forever and ever!!!How do you know?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43The space was always there forever and ever!!!
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?It's possible.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?Who said that it hasn't? How would you know that any given star that you are looking at didn't come from outside of the Milky Way?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?
The assumption that the Big Bang had also created a space in the Universe is purely unrealistic.
Do you really consider that the entire Universe was just waiting for the bang to set some space in it?
What about conservation law of space?
Sorry, If there was no space in the universe before the bang
Therefore, as the pre big bang space was clearly there before the big bang
Hence, even small amount of energy in the in the pre Big bang space/Universe must already ticking the time of the Universe.
Therefore, you can't claim any more that the time had started to tick only at the Big bang moment.
Why the Momentum can't be due to Gravity?
Do we know if anyone of those galaxies has any intention to fall into the Milky Way?
So you claim that stars from outside are falling into the galactic disc.
So you claim that stars from outside are falling into the galactic disc.Based on this assumption, all the 400,000,000 stars came from outside.