1

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 12/04/2023 05:10:17 »

Dear Dave,
I Appreciate you going thru the evidential links i provided in such a detailed manner.
I think i kinda understand your point of view now.
You ain't interested in Cause & Effect scenarios.

Dear Zer0
Thanks for your support.

Well, what if i ask You...
Why did you choose the Subject/Title of this OP as..
" How black hole really works ".

What Evidence is there for the Existence of a Black Hole?

Sorry, I have no intention to upset Kryptid and offer my personal understanding about the Existence of a Black Hole in this thread.
I open this thread in order to verify if the current theory that BHs/SMBHs eat stars & matter from outside is correct or incorrect.
In most of the articles that I have found (including those that you have offered) the title is very clear - there are evidences for that eating stars process.
However, when you read carefully the articles you discover that so far, not even a single star in the entire universe had been found while it is falling into the mouth of a SMBH.
All they have found is: X-Ray, Corona & flare that are due to normal Electromagnetic activity and not due to any sort of falling stars.
However, so far the science community could claim that even if they didn't discover it yet, there is a possibility that one day in the future they will find it.
Not anymore!
The cygnus-x-1 is the best smoking gun which I could dream about.
Please look at the following image:
https://astronomy.com/news/2021/03/cygnus-x-1-the-black-hole-that-started-it-all
1. The BH is the most massive stellar-mass black hole that can be produced,
2. The area around the BH is full with gas
3. The orbital star is also very massive and full with gas
4. The outwards jet stream from the poles of the BH is very strong and expected to be at almost the speed of light.
5. It is stated that "the star in that system is slowly being pulled apart and consumed by the black hole".

Therefore, it is very clear that the total matter that the cygnus-x-1-the-black-hole ejects is greater than the mass that it consumes from the orbital Star.
As the star is so massive, there is even a possibility that the real gas flow is from the BH to the star and not vice versa. Therefore, I wonder, why the science community didn't even try to verify what is the real gas flow direction .

I fully agree with Kryptid about the following message:

We know that gas isn't getting out of the black hole because that would break the laws of physics: matter cannot exit the event horizon.

However, as the total matter that the cygnus-x-1-the-black-hole ejects is greater than the mass that it consumes from the orbital Star, then there might be an error in the assumption that "the gas in the accretion disk is coming from the star."

Hence, with regards to your question:
"What Evidence is there for the Existence of a Black Hole?"

Once the science community would accept the observation and understand that BHs/SMBHs do not eat gas/stars from outside, they would easily find the correct answer for the Existence of a Black Hole.

2

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 09/04/2023 19:13:06 »

I see the OP continuously struggling to Understand BH formations, but i see Noone helping the OP out with Logic based Evidence.

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/f_blackhole-briefing.html

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20120502.html

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-gets-unusually-close-glimpse-of-black-hole-snacking-on-star

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/hubble-finds-hungry-black-hole-twisting-captured-star-into-donut-shape

Dear Zer0
Did you have a chance to read the articles that you have offered, or the title was good enough for you.
Unfortunately, there is no observation of any star as it falls into the SMBH in all of those articles
So, what our scientists really observe:

1. https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/f_blackhole-briefing.html
"Images from Chandra, XMM-Newton and earlier images from the German Roentgen satellite ROSAT detected a strong X-ray eruption from the middle of galaxy RX J1242-11."
So, they only observe Strong X-ray eruption from the middle of galaxy. They didn't even claim that this X-ray is from the BH itself.
In the explanation about the "X-ray" it is stated:
The X-ray data indicate that the enormous force of gravity near a black hole can not only annihilate another celestial body, but fling most its debris far away from the black hole."
What is the meaning of: "fling most its debris far away from the black hole".
Could it be that this X-ray indicate on strong outflow from the BH?
Hence - No indication for any star as it falls in.
It is also sated:
"The outburst was caused by the gas from the obliterated star being super-heated to millions of degrees Celsius, before being swallowed by the black hole. The energy released was equivalent to a supernova and considered one of the most intense ever detected in a galaxy."
Therefore, our scientists fully confirm that when a star falls into the SMBH "The energy released was equivalent to a supernova"
Hence, any star that falls into the SMBH must be detected by a severe energy as Supernova.

2. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20120502.html
"We are seeing the glow from the stellar gas falling into the black hole over time. We're also witnessing the spectral signature of the ejected gas, which we find to be mostly helium. It is like we are gathering evidence from a crime scene."
So, they clearly see the ejected gas.
However, why they claim that they "are seeing the glow from the stellar gas falling into the black hole over time."
What is the real meaning of "over time"
If they see the gas that is falling into the BH, then they have to claim that:
"We are seeing the glow from the stellar gas falling into the black hole"
Therefore I think that they don't see any gas that is falling in, however, they just hope that "over time" the gas that they have observed would fall in.
It is also not logical that the same gas would fall in and ejected out at the same time.
They do not say that the gas is ejected outwards over time.
They claim very clearly - We're also witnessing the spectral signature of the ejected gas".
Therefore, all they really see is gas that ejected outwards and some sort of a gas glow that they hope would fall in over time.
In any case, the didn't see any star as it falls into the SMBH.
There is no supernova or any sort of strong energy that indicates about breaking the falling star.
They even confirm that all they see is "an evidence from a crime scene"
Hence, they didn't see the cime itself and therefore, it is very clear by now that they didn't see any star as it falls in.

3. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-gets-unusually-close-glimpse-of-black-hole-snacking-on-star
astronomers saw a dramatic rise in high-energy X-ray light around the black hole. This indicated that as the stellar material was pulled toward its doom, it formed an extremely hot structure above the black hole called a corona."
So all they see is X-ray light around the black hole and corona.
No supernova and no star as it falls in.
It is also stated:
"Coronae emit higher-energy X-rays than any other part of a black hole, but scientists don’t know where the plasma comes from or exactly how it gets so hot."
“Our observations of AT2021ehb are in agreement with the idea that magnetic fields have something to do with how the corona forms, and we want to know what’s causing that magnetic field to get so strong.”
I really wonder how those scientists can't understand that the SMBH is the source for that strong magnetic field.
Therefore, the SMBH Magnetic field is responsible for the corona and the x-Ray emotion.
No supernova of any falling star.

4. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/hubble-finds-hungry-black-hole-twisting-captured-star-into-donut-shape
The Hubble spectroscopic data are interpreted as coming from a very bright, hot, donut-shaped area of gas that was once the star. This area, known as a torus, is the size of the solar system and is swirling around a black hole in the middle.
Again, no supernova and no star as it falls in.
All they see is a very bright, hot, donut-shaped area of gas that is swirling around a black hole in the middle.
It is also stated:
"We're looking somewhere on the edge of that donut. We're seeing a stellar wind from the black hole sweeping over the surface that's being projected towards us at speeds of 20 million miles per hour (three percent the speed of light),
So, they see stellar projected towards us at speeds of three percent the speed of light, which is all about outflow.

Conclusions
Our scientists clearly observe the Outflow jet stream.
They see the gas around the SMBH.
They also see the X-Ray and corona which are clear indication for the SMBH EM energy
However, no supernova and no observation of any star as it falls.

3

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 11/03/2023 05:52:25 »

My premise is that there was no beginning, i.e., space, time, matter and energy have always existed.

Yes, it is very logical.

The current assumption is that time started at the Big Bang, which would make these two assertions incorrect.

If we do understand by now that the Space/universe is infinite then it was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Do you agree that even in an empty space there is some sort of energy?
So how can we claim that in this infinite space with some minimal of energy there was no time before the Big Bang?

I would ask you to confine your assertions to your own topics. You're hijacking this topic, and continued wild assertions will get the posts moved or simply deleted.

Dear Halc
I don't assert any new idea.
My question is about the energy source for the BBT which is fully correlated to this thread discussion
I have already asked Kryptid if I should stop.

If you don't like those questions, then please let me know and I would stop.

So far he was very kind and offered excellent answers.
However, if Kryptid thinks that this last question is too difficult to cover, then I would stop.

4

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 09/03/2023 05:48:21 »

I already explained that the Big Bang theory already assumes an infinite Universe and it does so without any need for infinite time because it was already infinite in size at the very first moment of time.

Dear Kryptid
I do recall that just few years ago, Halc claimed that Just after the Big Bang the entire Universe was in the size of a grapefruit. (I specifically remember the word - "grapefruit")
When I have asked about the energy source for the Big Bang, the answer was: As there was no space and no time, there is no need to explain the BBT energy source.
In other words, without space, there is no time and therefore we could technically bypass the law of physics and get almost unlimited energy for the bang without any need to explain its source.
However, now we do understand that the Universe was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.
So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?
Don't you agree that now we must offer real source of infinite energy for the Big Bang to take place in the real infinite space/Universe?
We can't drive a car without source of energy.
So how can we drive a theory without real source of energy?
Sorry, if we can't offer real source of energy for the BBT to take place at the Infinite space/Universe, then this theory is useless.

5

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 08/03/2023 15:21:00 »

If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?

The size of the observable universe is finite in part because light has only been able to travel for 13.8 billion years and in part because objects beyond a certain distance are recessing away from us too fast to ever be seen.

Dear Kryptid

Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?
I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.

It's true that you can trace all the matter in our observable universe back to a tiny space, but that doesn't include all the matter that would be outside our observable universe.

We first must understand the size of our entire space/universe (yes even all the matter outside our observable universe) and just then try to explain it all with one and single theory.
Therefore, if Halc is correct, and "Most models presume space to be infinite" then it is our obligation to explain that infinite space.
Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.

Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?

Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)
If you don't like those questions, then please let me know and I would stop.

6

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 07/03/2023 19:53:18 »

Most models presume space to be infinite.

If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?

7

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 17/04/2022 17:17:50 »

Is it finite or infinite???

Unknown and possibly unknowable.

Do appreciate you honest answer.
However, if you don't know and you also claim that it is possibly unknowable, how do you know that what you don't know is correct or incorrect?
Don't you agree that a theory for finite and compact universe should be different from a theory for infinite Universe?

Just a brief example:
Let's assume that you are a jet eng. designer.
You had been asked to design a jet engine for an airplane.
However, you have no clue about the size and the total requested load of this airplane.
Can you do it successfully?
Don't you agree that a get engine for 100Kg should be different from a jet for 1,000,000,000 Tons?
Maybe for that kind of load a jet engine is not good enough.
So how could it be that we have any sort of theory for a universe without any knowledge about its total size?

How could it be that the science community don't care about the size of the universe.
How do they to tell us a story about the Universe without any clue about the size of that universe?

I don't think he's provided any kind of new, compelling evidence for that.

There is an evidence
It is called - curvature in space.
To my best understanding, we didn't discover any sort of curvature in space.
If that is correct then it proves that there is no limit for our Universe.
No limit means - infinite.
Why can't we all accept "Bogie Logic" that the Universe is infinite?
At least - do you agree that there is a possibility that the Universe is infinite?
If so, do you estimate that the BBT - as is - fits also to the infinite Universe?
Can you really set infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?

Why don't we have a backup story for infinite Universe as Bogie offers.

8

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 17/04/2022 06:57:35 »

You may think of the universe as an infinite "heat sink" where energy dissipated into space is lost forever, but I don't think that is the case.

Dear Bogie_smiles
You are almost the only person that claims clearly that the Universe is Infinite in its size and in its age.
Your theory for infinite bangs is based on that key understanding that the universe is Infinite.
No Multiverse, no different space/times layers and no any sort of other imagination.
Just for this understanding you should get a reward from the whole science community.

the Big Bang not being able to account for an infinite universe,

Can you please share with us your opinion about the size of the universe?
Is it finite or infinite???

If it is finite - can you please specify its size?
If you can't do so, then how can we discuss about the energy for a universe without any knowledge about its size?
Do you think that the energy that is needed for ant is exactly the same as needed for a space shuttle?
Therefore, it is not an issue of energy in theory D, Z or even in the BBT.
We must understand the size of the Universe before we discuss about any sort of energy for that universe.
So please - would you kindly tell us the real size of the Universe according to your understanding.

Do you also agree that Bogie_smiles should get a reward for his understanding that the Universe is Infinite?

9

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 16/04/2022 15:36:31 »

This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.

No
It's an example of how the energy in the system is converted from one form to another.
There is no new energy.

Just a simple question:
Do you confirm that in tidal heat transformation, the energy of orbital motion is transformed into heat energy?
Yes or No?

10

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 16/04/2022 08:25:54 »

The Sun loses mass, but the rest of the universe gains that mass.

This example represents an ideal Universe without any sort of heat/energy dissipation.
A system without any sort of heat/energy dissipation is "Perpetuum Mobile".
However, in our real Universe there is no activity without heat/energy dissipation.
We own our live to the heat dissipation of the Sun (due to its fusion activity).

There is no need for new energy if there is a perpetual process of matter to energy to matter via big crunches and big bangs that have been occurring forever, here and there, across the infinite universe.

Theoretically - in Ideal conditions without any sort of heat/energy dissipation, that activity could be correct.
Therefore, your Infinite Bangs theory could work as long as we all believe in "Perpetuum Mobile".

I see that you are trying to sneak in a lot of the same controversial statements that you have used in your Theory D discussion.

As I have stated - Theory D is irrelevant in this discussion.
We try to understand how infinite activity as infinite bangs at infinite Universe could work indefinitely without any need for external energy.
I claim that in order to get that kind of infinite activity there is a need for external energy.
If you don't me to participate in this discussion - please tell me and I would stay out.

If it is OK, then we all must agree that in real nature/universe there is no way to get "Perpetuum Mobile" system.
If you wish to get infinite Universe (size & age) with infinite energy  that works indefinitely - somehow new energy should be created.
It is not related to theory D or Z.
It is just pure real science!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:42:08
New energy should come from somewhere.

Not according to the first law of thermodynamics.

Your statement about the meaning of the first law of thermodynamics is 100% correct.
However, when you add the impact of gravity - then you actually add new free force that can add new energy.
Let me use the example of BC with minor changes:

OK, imagine a rock orbiting the Sun at a distance of a little over a light year.It has an orbital period given by the distance, and the mass of the Sun.
Then we switch the Sun back on.
Light and the solar wind stream out from the Sun- it loses mass.
But the path of the rock does not change until the light reaches it.

I claim that Tidal energy could change the path of the rock.
We all know that the moon has real tidal impact on the Earth.
Due to that tidal impact the Earth gets internal tidal heat energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation - the Moon is drifting outwards.
Therefore, in real orbital path of that rock (as in BC example) - under tidal heat transformation, it is expected that the rock would drift outwards.
It can't just stay at the same orbital radius for indefinitely.
This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.
Hence  - gravity force could be transformed into new energy - however it comes with a payment of changing the orbital radius.
You all know that this statement is a correct.
Therefore, before we offer any sort of theory to our Universe - we must offer a solution for new energy.
It is not my personal imagination and it is not related to theory D, Z, BS or BBT.
Our Universe can't be created/work without real energy source.
Sorry - infinite energy can't just come out of nothing.
If you care about real science – then before we offer any sort of theory – it is our obligation to offer the source of energy for that theory.
I don't accept an answer as: "we don't know and we don't care"
This kind of answer is a direct contradiction to real science!

In the same token, the idea of Bogie_smiles for infinite bangs could potentially work indefinitely by adding that tidal energy to his theory and overcome the fusion heat dissipation.
He calls it: "the gravitational wave" and I like that name.
 
In any case, if you don't want me to participate in this discussion - I would stop.

11

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 15/04/2022 13:53:01 »

Matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and objects of matter both absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.

So, you offer the gravitational wave as a source of energy.
That is excellent Idea.
Actually, we all know that Gravity comes for free.
However, you should show how gravity or gravity wave could be transformed to energy (especially new EM energy).
Once you have new EM energy, you could theoretically create new protons and new matter.
That matter could compensate the losing mass due to fusion activity.
Therefore, new protons / matter could keep your infinite bang cycles for infinity.
So please - try to find a solution how gravity could be transformed into new EM energy.

12

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 15/04/2022 09:42:08 »

Gravity would provide the crunch, and fusion would provide the bang. Multiple crunch/bangs across infinite space for eternity would continually stir the pot of space to keep things changing. It would also provide an endless process of iterations of elements and molecules so all possible combinations would regularly occur here and there. Anything possible would have some probability of occurring somewhere, sometime, over and over.

And thus, the occurrence of life, here and there, now and then, would be a certainty. Any objections to that premise?

127500,127608,

There is small problem in this concept.
Let's assume that you are fully correct in your theory.
However, do you agree that our sun is losing mass due to fusion activity & solar wind?
https://lisbdnet.com/how-much-mass-does-the-sun-lose-per-second/
"We find that the Sun loses mass 4.289×10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×10^20 g every year to energy."
In the same token every star in the galaxy or in the Universe is also losing mass over time.
As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.
Hence, the existence of the entire Universe is based on energy.
In order to keep your Infinite Bangs theory and overcome the losing mass due to Stars fusion activity - New energy should come from somewhere.

13

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 08/04/2022 12:23:55 »

I do think that over time there will be many new discoveries about the macro universe as well as the micro realm, and the excitement is in the on-going unfolding of an understanding of reality.

We have already discovered that there is no curvature in space.
Therefore, our Universe can't be limited in its size!

I wouldn't claim that my speculative ideas would do a very good job of describing reality

Your Idea that the universe is infinite in its size/space is 100% correct.
As there is no curvature in the space, the assumption that our universe is limited in its space is just incorrect.
Based on this understanding it is clear that there is no way to set unlimited universe space by a single bang that took place 13.8 BY ago.
Hence, the age of an infinite Universe must be also infinite.
Therefore, our real universe must be infinite in its size/space and also in its age.
Any one knows that, even those people that wish to believe in a single BBT idea.
Hence, if we wish to believe that our universe is limited in its size and had been created 13.8 BY ago by a single bang, now that we know that the Universe is unlimited in its size (and its age) - it is very clear that based on the same concept, there must be unlimited number of bangs.

There are just too many alternatives and unknowns.

No
There is only one clear understanding for our Universe.
It is infinite in its size and age as you have stated!

You have offered better alternative for that real universe.
Therefore, in my point of view, your idea for unlimited no of bangs for infinite universe is much more realistic than the current main stream speculation that our universe is limited in its size and had been created by only a single Bang.
Please be awrae that in order to keep the wrong idea of a single BBT for the unlimited universe size, some scientists offered new speculations as Multiverse and different space/times layers. However, they are all incorrect.
The missing curvature in space proves by 100% that there is only one universe and this universe is unlimited in its size and age.
Any theory must explain that unlimited universe size and age!

14

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 02/04/2022 04:57:24 »

Dave, you seem to be dangerously close to talking about Theory D again.

Dear Kryptid
I only wish to focus on real science.
In real science there is no way to move an atom (or create an atom) without real energy source.
I really like the theory from Bogie_smiles as there is a real energy source for its infinite bangs/crunches theory.
He actually reuse the energy in its infinite time & space universe.
We can agree or disagree on that kind of energy source, but at least there is a real source for the energy in his theory.
Theory D is irrelevant for this discussion.
I also like the idea of repeatable bangs/crunches activity.
In our real universe any activity must be repeatable.
It is not natural to accept the idea of a single activity in the entire universe.
Actually, there must be a way for us to verify if Bogie_smiles theory is real.
I would advice to verify if the expectation from Bogie_smiles theory meets the observations.
If yes, then it might be a good theory.
However, if we would verify even a single contradiction (in current observation - or in the future observation) then this theory is not realistic.
Therefore, real energy source + repeatable activity + 100% correlation between expectations to observation should be the base for Bogie_smiles theory or any other theory.

15

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 21/03/2022 15:35:43 »

I'll have to finish my ranting on these topics later, since I'm on a cruise and stuff is happening all the time, lol.

Dear Bogie_smiles
I hope that you enjoy the cruise.

You may be right. However, my premise is that the universe has always existed; no creation or initial event that everything has to track back to. Celestial mechanics would be a natural occurrence. Atoms and molecules would occur naturally and would be recycled via big crunches and big bangs.  Maybe protons are eternal too?

Let me summarize my point of view about your theory.
1. Infinite space - Yes, you are absolutely correct. There is only one Universe and the space in this universe goes to the infinity at any direction. If you jump by 10^1000 LY to the left, while I would jump 10^1000LY to the right - the distance between us would be exactly 2*10^1000LY.
2. Infinite age - I also fully agree with you that the Universe with its infinite space is infinite in its age. the idea that it had been created only 13.8 By ago is just imagination.
3. Imagination - Multiverse, Curvature in space, other space dimension in space time, Space expansion/inflation and other hypothetical theories - Those are pure imagination from scientists that do understand that the current BBT can't fit to the observations but they still wish to hold it.
4. Energy in the space - There is abundant energy in space. even in an "empty" space.
https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/zoom-energy.html
"There is abundant energy in space. Even though most of deep space (the vast stretches of empty area between planets, stars and moons) is cold and dark, space is flooded constantly by electromagnetic energy."
Try to use that electromagnetic energy in your theory.
6. Free energy - As there is no other space dimension while  space/time are always there then there is no free energy that could come free of charge to help your theory as our scientists hope to get in the BBT theory (while they don't have a clue how that energy comes in).
7. Real Matter - It is perfectly OK to assume that there was always matter in the Universe. However, there is maximum upper limit on proton lifetime.

Maybe protons are eternal too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
"The maximum upper limit on proton lifetime (if unstable), is calculated at 6 × 10^39 years, a bound applicable to SUSY models,"
So, if based on your theory, 10^100 years ago, the infinite universe was already full with infinite matter, then by now that matter should be decay. 
Therefore, you must show how new protons/atoms are CONSTANTLY created in our real universe.

16

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 20/03/2022 06:13:17 »

Thanks for the explanation.

You could just as easily ask "how is the electromagnetic force created in a proton?" or "how is the gravitational force created in a proton?" The strong nuclear force is every bit as fundamental as electromagnetism and gravity. If an explanation for the creation of electromagnetism or gravity isn't necessary, then neither is an explanation for the creation of the strong nuclear force. Alternatively, if the creation of the strong nuclear force must be explained, then so must the creation of electromagnetism and gravity.

Let's ignore the "how"?
My key question is - what kind of energy is needed for the proton creation?

Quarks come with the strong nuclear force automatically (just as they come with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces automatically). If a quark is formed, then the strong force must also be there.

Hence, Quarks come with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces automatically.
Actually, we all know that proton has electric charge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge
"The elementary charge, usually denoted by e or sometimes qe is the electric charge carried by a single proton"
Electromagnetism in the main energy that carry electric charge.

In the following artical we can see the animation of the gluon-field in the proton:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theory/staff/leinweber/VisualQCD/Nobel/
The animations to the right and above illustrate the typical four-dimensional structure of gluon-field configurations averaged over in describing the vacuum properties of QCD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation#/media/File:Quantum_Fluctuations.gif
That filed is also called "quantum fluctuation":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
"In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[2] as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic"

Therefore, can we consider the proton as electromagnetic and gravitational forces/energy in a Box/cell?
Or in other words - proton is a cell of  EM energy + gravitational force.
Therefore, do you confirm that without EM energy there is no way to create any proton?

If so, it is clear that Bogie_smiles idea for recycling the matter by only gravitational wave energy can't work.
There is also a need for EM energy for the creation of any proton in the entire Universe.

17

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: 14/08/2021 19:50:54 »

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.
One example would be the start of the universe.

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.
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 know

As 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"?

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: 16/07/2021 15:13:25 »

And now you need to look at the resolution and sensitivity.

How long are you going to keep on with this pathetic approach?
How long it should take you to accept the observation as is?
I have clearly proved that based on our current supper advanced technology our scientists can:
1. Observe Cold/Hot Matter/stuff and their movement direction
2 Observe if the stuff is falling inwards into the SMBH or ejected outwards
3. Observe the SMBH' accretion disc activities up to at least One billion light year away from us.


Based on this supper advanced technology they can observe that the matter at ANY accretion disc is ejected outwards.
However, they have NEVER & EVER observed any sort of stuff that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.

So what else is need for your BBT mind to understand that what we see is what we have?
Are you waiting for God to come down by himself and tell you face to face that stuff from outside never falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?

Do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?

Dear Kryptid
Let me offer you the following example:
You stay in your room.
No one else is there.
You look under the bed and there is no monster.
You look under the carpet and there is no monster.
You look everywhere in the room and there is no monster.
So, Do you believe that the monster that you can't see doesn't exist?

A cellar with a black cat looks exactly the same as a cellar without a black cat.
So the view of the cellar does not tell you anything at all about the presence (or absence) of the cat.

Let me tell you something about the black cat over a coal cellar:
Do you know that the cat' eyes reflect light?
So, if you set a black cat over a black cellar - you would easily detect the cat by the reflection from their eyes.
Hence, it is all about simple technology.
I have full trust in the supper advanced technology of our scientists.
They claim that they ONLY observed cold & hot stuff as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc - and I fully accept this observation.
They claim that they have NEVER & EVER observed cold & hot stuff as it is falling inwards from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc - and I fully accept this observation

Therefore - Nothing really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
NEVER & EVER!

It's time for all the 100,000 BBT scientists to accept the observation as is.
What we see is what we have!

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: 16/04/2021 19:11:58 »

Common sense of whom?

Anyone older than about 3.

Anyone older than 3 would tell you that as Our scientists had never seen any falling star or inwards spiraling shape into any accretion disc in the entire universe with all their supper advanced technology and with all the billions available discs, then noting really falls into those accretion discs.
Based on that simple common sense our scientists must explain the real source of the matter in those SMBH accretion discs.

The black holes and accretion disks might have something to do with your fantasy, but they have nothing to do with the BBT.

Hawking told us about the pair creation & radiation around the BH event horizon.
This isn't fantasy as the BBT. This is real.
I hope that even you confirm Hawking explanation that SMBH can generate new pair particles near its event horizon.
Those new created particles can keep the universe steady as Einstein clearly told us.
Therefore, we are living today in a steady universe.
That by itself kicks out the BBT theory.

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: 03/02/2021 17:41:09 »

Unless your data includes gravitational lensing then it isn't valid.
In reality, gravity affects photons much the same as it affects you and me.

No
Gravity doesn't slow down the photon velocity as it might affect any other real mass.
As I have already informed the gravitational lensing is actually a curvature in space time due to the ultra gravity force.
Even so, that curvature in space is the base for the curvature in the light/photon.
In any case, it doesn't change the velocity of the photon as it should chage any real mass/object that would penetrate to that aria.
That proves that photon has no mass.

If you use hard gammas, then most of them would turn into pairs.

Well, first you have to prove that the pure BBT energy could set those gammas.
You have already known that photons and gammas are all about EM.
For EM you need Electro/magnetic waves/fields
You have to agree that there were no Dynamo or magnets at the early Universe.
Therefore, there is no EM. Without EM there is no photons or high energetic photons as Gammas..
Even if you wish to believe that photons would be created, why are you so sure that those photons are energetic?
How a pure energy could set photons at ultra high energy?
Based on the BBT, the space itself is expanding. So, any mass or mass less particale must move with the space.
So nothing could move faster than the space expansion.
However, the photon/gammas must move at the speed of light with reference to their space time. Therefore if there photons/gammas they had to break the envelop of the expanding universe.
This is one more explanation why photons/gammas can't be created at the early Universe.

much faster than the space expansion.

"For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. "

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Do you remember that page?

Yes I do.
However, now I understand that this isn't realistic.
Photons/gammas cross the space of our current universe.
The space is full with mass and atoms.
So if that idea was correct, then any photon/gammas had to be converted to the particle pair.
However, this isn't the case; We clearly can observe those photons/gammas as they cross the space without any pair creation.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:30:10
Would you kindly explain why the energetic photons could cross the Hydrogen chamber, the space which is full with Hydrogen atoms and our atmosphere without being transformed into new pair particles?
In much the same was as Xrays, gamma rays usually go through matter.

You do not answer the question:
If the following imagination that photons are converted to the new particle pair as they move near by mass, then why we can't observe that process in our universe or even in the Hydrogen chamber?
Why we can clearly see the pair particle process due to shooting an atom to the chamber, while we can't see the same pair process by shooting energetic photons to that chamber?

If we can't observe the pair creation process by photons as we see with atom, thean this idea is not relevant.