Remember when I said that the theory of solar nuclear fusion doesn't address where the energy in the Sun came from in the first place? Does that make it a useless theory?We clearly know how stars are created.
Therefore, when we discuss on the Sun' nuclear fusion activity we do not need to discuss again how it has got its energy.
However, if there's a place somewhere in which time is not symmetrical then the conservation of mass/ energy does not apply.Even if we agree on that, the Start of the Universe doesn't explain how the whole energy had been created at the first stage.
One example would be the start of the universe.
It only might explain how energy that had been evolved outside that early universe had arrived free of charge to that universe.
So, do you agree that the BBT is all about energy transformation and not about energy creation?
If the BBT explain the energy creation - then please explain how the energy had been created.
As it is all about energy transformation from outside, then somehow this energy must be evolved outside.
However, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know that your laws prevents from any energy to be created - not in our current space time and not outside our space time.
Therefore, you all know that new energy can't be created anywhere.
Hence, instead of admit that the BBT is just a useless theory, you claim that you just do not know:
waste effort caring about something which we do not, and cannot knowAs you clearly claim that you don't know, then why do you claim that:
he BBT does not break the conservation laws because, at that point, time was not symmetrical.Please, would you kindly take a decision?
Do you know or you don't know?
If you know that due to the idea that "time was not symmetrical" you can create new energy in the early Universe, then please explain how it works by real mathematics.
If you don't know how the new energy had been evolved, then why do you sell us that nonsense about "time was not symmetrical"?
The following users thanked this post: Just thinking