« Last post by wolfekeeper on Today at 00:19:46 »
Energy is one of several symmetries in the laws of physics.
This is the op.
Well, I still think that the BBT is nonsense and that Plank Epoch is just imagination.
However, as you don't let me work with the real energy as VE
then I had been forced to use your BBT wagon in order to get that requested first BH.
As long as our scientists claim that the BBT is correct, then I can use that Planck epoch idea.
Based on the BBT the universe started as a Planck point.
So, "my" universe can start as a finite universe at the infinite time ago and end today with infinite Universe.
Sorry, you didn't offer any real data to prove that the energy at the Planck epoch is infinite.
Therefore, if you wish to keep your BBT alive
I have to use your rule about the space expansion,
So, it isn't about science any more.
Ah yes, but/t surely it's the IR photons and the vibrations in the water which scald?Absolutely, that’s what we are saying. Not a ‘thing’ called energy in the water.
That still doesn't explain why energy exhibits the bizarre properties that it does (e.g. light interacting with matter and black holes the way it does and even being able to move it, the ability to be transformed in matter, etc.). Again, with certain pieces of technology, you can see, like straight up perceive with your vision, sound waves and infrared light. Even if energy lacks a true, definitive form, I find it incredibly difficult to think of energy as anything but a thing. Not a visible, tangible thing mind you, but a thing non the less.The answer given by @chiralSPO is the correct scientific answer. Most of your other questions are answered in @Eternal Student post #6.
In a real science world, theory D works perfectly without any change.In the real world it is impossible because it breaks the conservation laws.
No; you won't.As we have pointed out, even if you have a single BH, "Theory" D does not work, because it breaks the conservation laws.Yes it is
I will explain it soon.
However, as you don't let me work with the real energy as VE, then I had been forced to use your BBT wagon in order to get that requested first BH.The thing that you were "forced" to do was explain how the VE turned into a BH.
Sorry, you didn't offer any real data to prove that the energy at the Planck epoch is infinite.You wrote that immediately after quoting him proving exactly that.
I know that the VE is the ultimate solution.It doesn't solve the problems with your idea.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:49:36
And you still need to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 14:09:50
Here's the post where I proved that you are wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 10:39:01
If we accept, for a moment, your idea that the universe started with just 1 black hole, le us consider what that would mean.
Imagine I went back in time in a space/time ship of some sort and I put my ship in orbit round that BH- a very long way out so I don't affect it.
I can watch the universe getting made (we will assume I live practically forever).
If your model is correct, I will see the BH spit out matter and that matter will form stars etc
One thing I can do while I watch is time the orbital period of my ship round the new universe.
From that orbital period, I can calculate the mass of the Universe.
In your model that orbital period will change as the BH increases the mass of the universe.
This gives me a way in which I can "weigh" the universe.
And, according to you, that weight will increase.
But the conservation law proves that it can't increase.
So we know your model is wrong.
That's the important bit; your model is wrong, no matter what mechanism you put forward for the process where BH make stars.
And you still need to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/09/2021 08:35:39
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/09/2021 10:12:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 18:46:29
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2021 13:46:31
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?
Please read the following:
I understand it.
You say you do.
If you understand it then please write down the two different definitions of the word "real" which are being used in this discussion.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 11:09:50
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:07:42
Do not bother to reply until you find out the difference between real and virtual particles.
Until you do that, you are just wasting everybody's time.
In a (probably vain) attempt to break the cycle of spam by Petrochemicals, I'll answer the title by saying, "we don't know for sure, but the asteroid impact that happened 66 million years ago probably had a big influence on it". That being said, there was recently some good evidence found for the survival of non-avian dinosaurs for about half a million years after that impact. For some reason, I'm having trouble finding the article right now, though.This is the op.
Now the extinction at the kt boundary wiped the dinosaurs out pretty much, some survived in limited pockets apparently.
But why did they die out?
Dinosaurs where of all sizes and persuasions. If they where cold blooded why did the reptiles survive? If warm why where the mammals spared? Why would an entire clave of creatures perish and not any of the others?