0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.So what is the energy source?If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 19:46:03Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:46:17However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.So what is the energy source?If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?You seem to have finally seen the problem in your idea.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:46:17However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.So what is the energy source?If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?
No. There is no problem with the energy transformation in theory D.
You are more than welcome to read it, if you didn't read it yet.
However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.
If you add to that all the other problems with the BBT than this theory should be set by now in the garbage of the history
Try to calculate how many stars there are just in those 195 nearby galaxies (including our galaxy).Only in Andromeda there are over than one trillion stars.So, let's assume that there are x Trillion stars. Therefore, we can say that outside the galaxies (Just in that nearby area) there are at least x Trillion stars + 1 one more.
In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.
Some of them might collide with each other in the open space, some might blow up in a supernova and some might be converted into BH.
However, why are you so sure that all of them must have a limited file cycle?
If we discuss about BH or especially SMBH, than there is good chance that at some point of time the SMBH will be so massive that it could be converted to Magnatar or Pulsar.By that time it would probably kick out all the stars that it was hosting in its galaxy
However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.No, I didin't.
OkIf you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT
than would you kindly direct me to that article?
Please use articles to backup your understanding as I did!!!
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:02:00OkIf you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBTIt doesn't need one.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
At Wiki it is stated:"The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, and such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."However, in order to bypass that "physical impossibility" they came with a brilliant idea that: "physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang."So the contradiction is as follow:If there was no time before the BBT then our scientists can't claim that before the BBT Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures.They have to clock the time from the moment that something came to our totally empty Universe.So if there was something as: "very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures", thקn clearly the time was ticking from the first moment of accumulation that energy in the Universe.Therefore, the time was already ticking before the zero time of the BBT..However, as we already know the time kills the BBT as : "such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."
I would like to remind you that you have also totally ignored the contradiction between zero time and infinite energy that was requested to the BBT:
In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.
Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT i
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.Here's a precis.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why hasn't it burned out yet?Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT It can now
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.And there is matter in the universe.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?
In this article our scientists don't even try to claim that this idea could deliver any sort of energy to the BBT.
But as usual, you assume that your knowledge is much superior then those scientists.
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT, than would you kindly direct me to that article?
So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.
The conservation laws which are a consequence of the observed symmetries of the universe.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.Here's a precis.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why hasn't it burned out yet?Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
The Big Bang does not need an energy source.
I am a scientist.More importantly, I'm not assuming I understand the BBT better than them.
I am saying I understand it better than you.
You are suffering from the misunderstanding that it needs energy.The thing about the zero energy universe.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe is that it doesn't take any energy to create it..
Based on the BBT, there were no matter before the bang.Just to remind you that even the time didn't start its ticking before the bang and the first Atom had been created only 380,000 years after the Big Bang.Kryptid have already told me that our scientists don't really know what is the BBT' energy source.So, it is clear that our scientists are not using this idea of zero energy as a source of energy for the BBT.However, somehow you hope that you know much better than all of them, while you can't offer any article that could support your misunderstanding in this issue.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:52:15I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.I didn't say you had.I asked why it hasn't burned out yet.That's not the same thing.The point is that, after an infinite time, stars shouldn't be "starting",So, any finite age for the Sun makes no sense.After an infinite time, anything and everything that can happen will have happened.And that includes the death of the Sun.Yet it still shinesSo...
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:52:15I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.
The Sun and any other star could live long life. So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.
Therefore, there is no way to apply that idea for the first stage of the BBT.
"in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist"
If you think that star has a limited time frame of only few Billion years, than please show your data in a clear article.If not, please don't ask about it any more!
Even if you say that a star lasts a quintillion years (at which point everyone will laugh at you) I will point out that the Universe has- in your view, been round infinitely longer than that, so the stars (and their successors) should have died out long ago.We should look up and see only the heat death of the universe.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 14:27:53Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.Here's a precis.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why hasn't it burned out yet?Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
If the life of a star is not infinite, then they should all have died out but they have not.So,
You have totally got lost.
So,Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:13:18Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 14:27:53Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.Here's a precis.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why hasn't it burned out yet?Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?You need to start your response with "The Sun has not burned out yet because".
However, in theory D it is totally different.
At any given moment new mass is created around any BH/SMBH in the Universe.
If you had, I could have already pointed out that you seem to have reinvented this failed isea.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests
Why is it so important for our scientists to protect the BBT?Is there any sort of faith or belief that our scientists share in order to protect the BBT?
Did I miss something?
BBT or steady state. Nothing could be in between.
You all totally ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT.
If someone comes up with a theory that explains it better they would win the Nobel Prize